98 replies to this topic

[absintheofmalaise]

We're proud to announce that highly respected and knowledgeable ESPN Boston Red Sox reporter Gordon Edes will be joining us for a chat on Friday 11/18 starting around 12:45 or so. He's going to be busy covering the GM and Owners Meeting that week, so please go ahead and post questions and hopefully he'll have time to answer follow up questions during the chat.

If any lurkers have questions, please PM a member and they'll get posted.

If you aren't already doing so, you should follow Gordon on Twitter.

[pedros hairstylist]

Can you talk about how the accelerated news cycle (Twitter, blogging, et al) and the increased competition in the Boston media market has changed the way stories are both reported and not reported? Do you find there's a greater rush to be first rather than right and/or more emphasis on creating mountains out of molehills just to "win" the day's coverage race?

[Rough Carrigan]

Gordon, do you believe Theo Epstein's editorially presented reasons for leaving the Sox and taking a new job with the Cubs? It seems like he left out some other reasons, at least 18 million of them.

[JimBoSox9]

Gordon, at the time of the Hohler article you mentioned that you were aware of Tito's (non)issue with painkillers and that you declined to report it. Without necessarily needing to get into the sordid details of that affair, can you talk about as a journalist where you draw the line at public versus private for the athletes you covet and what your thought process is when you hear about details such as that?

Thanks for doing this chat. I probably don't need to tell you that your stock (on this board at least, whatever that's worth) has risen significantly during the past month plus, and with my own medicore grounding in journalism ethics your conduct has been well above most of your peers. It's easy to go for the cheap pop with this fanbase and you've declined to do so. Well done.

[Lose Remerswaal]

Do you find it easier to cover the Red Sox as part of a national organization than it was as part of a local newspaper that not only was a part owner of the team, but perhaps relied much more heavily on staying in the teams good graces to maintain access so as to do their best to maintain circulation?

[reggiecleveland]

Are the stories about bad habits in the Red Sox clubhouse mostly an over reaction to a bad finish? Put another way was this year, from your observations, any different from other years?

[RedOctober3829]

Gordon,
How much of what Ben Cherington will do as Red Sox GM will be similar to what Theo did and what will be different? What traits does Ben bring to the table that Theo didn't have? Seeing as Ben also worked for Dan Duquette in a much different environment of running baseball ops, will we see some cross-pollenation of Dan's ways and Theo's way into Ben's running of the baseball ops?

[Savin Hillbilly]

Ben Cherington said in a recent interview that he had more of a "natural bias" than his predecessor toward using subjective, personality/character factors in evaluating players. Do you think this difference is real, or is Cherington emphasizing this because it's what the fanbase wants to hear right now? And if it's real, what impact, if any, do you think it will have on the Sox' off-season decisions?

[Dogman2]

Gordo,

A lot of information has become public since the Sox season ended. Some of this information, in light of the collapse, makes perfect sense. Other pieces of information seem to raise more questions rather than give possible reasons for the team and their late season problems. Things like Pete Abe's statements that Gonzalez was complaining about the schedule or the actual drinking in the dugout. My question is that because some of the information now public has been proven false by more than one person, how reliable are these 'team sources' given all of the information/accusations?

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Two questions:

1. How do you think that Dan Duquette will do as the Orioles GM? In the piece for ESPN, it doesn't sound as if you think he will do a good job. Do you feel that he really has learned his lesson since running the Sox?

2. Do you think that the publicity hit that the Sox management took over the last two months is going to follow them into next season and the seasons after? Were they shaken up about how fast the worm turned and do you think it will effect how they will react to players, etc. leaving from now on?

[Frisbetarian]

Thanks for agreeing to this chat, Gordon.

Right after the story about Terry Francona's use of painkillers came out, you wrote a scathing article saying he was the victim of a smear campaign by the Red Sox upper management. You stated, "Terry Francona is paying a dear price for deviating, however briefly, from the script." Do you still feel this way?

[Redkluzu]

Gordon,

Thanks for being on the ball with so much this year. You're always a good read. What are some the biggest challenges the Red Sox will face in the coming season that are NOT being reported constantly?

[SMU_Sox]

Gordon,



Thank you so much for agreeing to do this interview. Not to flatter you too much but you are one of the best baseball reporters in the country. Your work during the end of the season was poignant and insightful. Most of these questions so far are about baseball but I'd like to ask you something else. I'm taking a first amendment class and was wondering how you as a reporter felt on a couple of issues. In 1792 the press was limited to newspapers. Today we get our news from a lot more channels: radio, TV, and the internet. Do you think freedom of the press privileges should be extended to different mediums? And if so, where do you draw the line of what defines "the press" (i.e. are blogs part of the press– certain blogs only?)?

My other question is about a reporter's privilege to protect their anonymous sources. Do you think that the current jurisprudence and statutes provide sufficient protection/privilege for reporters or should there be more or less protection/privilege?

Thank you again, Gordon. I look forward to reading your answers here and pieces on ESPN.

Edit: spacing.

Edited by johnlimberakis, 08 November 2011 - 09:03 PM.

[YTF]

Gordon, you're obviously much closer to this team than all of us. Two part question for you. As some here and in the media have called for, do you see the need for the Red Sox to part ways with some of the current roster. I'm talking about some of the core players (Crawford, Youkilis, Beckett, Lester, Lackey, Wakefield) not including those who are obviously not returning or those who have filed for free agency? Or do you think this whole collapse, the reports that came to light about conditioning and the lack of "focus" from some players, the response to it and subsequent leaving of Theo and Francona Is enough to get this otherwise talented group of players back on the same page and pulling in the same direction?

[Ted Cox 4 president]

Gordon -

In past years, you were very much in favor of the Sox retaining and re-signing Varitek. What about now? Does he have any role to play on the 2012 team? If not, should the Sox think about him as a coach, and, if so, where and as what? Looking back at the 2011 season, should (and does) Varitek bear any of the blame?

Thanks.

[terrisus]

Gordon,
What difference do you find in now working for a place with no newspaper component to it, as compared to previously working for a newspaper? How has the change of focus impacted what you might choose to write and how you would go about writing it? Do you find yourself taking a different approach to writing based on the change in content delivery methods?

Thanks for taking the time to answer questions for us.

[JimD]

Hi Gordon,

Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford were purportedly leaders in their former clubhouses, yet they both deferred to the incumbent leaders the Red Sox clubhouse during their first season in Boston and seemed to stay in the background even as their season was going down in flames. Is this behavior common when players change teams, or is this perhaps more of a reflection of the personalities of these two players?

Thanks for taking the time to chat with us.

Jim D.

[E5 Yaz]

Thanks for doing this Gordon.

If someone from the clubhouse were to write a book about the Red Sox over the 2004-11 timeframe, whose take would you most be interested in reading? Francona comes first to mind, but is there a player or coach whose insights (if they were to be completely honest) might give the fanbase a perspective beyond what they'd normally get?

[absintheofmalaise]

Thanks again for doing this Gordon.

Have you heard anything about Cherington making any more changes in the Baseball Ops or the scouting staff that would make it more "his" staff than one he inherited from Theo?

[Trautwein's Degree]

Gordon, would you have written the Globe story without attributing your sources regarding Francona's use of pain medications? Why or why not?

[E5 Yaz]

Oh yeah ...

Bobby Valentine??????

The perception has started to grow that Lucchino is assuming more control over operations, now that Theo is gone ... the latest example being in the manager's search.

Is such a transition noticeable to the media who cover the team on a daily basis, or is this just growing paranoia on the part of some of the fanbase?

[absintheofmalaise]

Gordon asked us to move the start time back for 45 minutes or so. So, now you have more time to post questions if there is anything going on you might be curious about.

[Rough Carrigan]

Gordon,
The mid day show at 98.5 FM said that they have heard from multiple sources that the libelous story about Terry Francona's pain killer use was supplied by . . Theo! Do you believe this? Is he actually that macchiavellian that he would do something like that and then later say at a press conference introducing him to Chicago that he would have stayed in Boston if Tito had been retained?

[Foulkey Reese]

Thanks for doing the chat Gordon. Great work during all of the recent drama.

Now that Theo's gone, what would you consider to be his worst move? His best?

Also, is there any untold story/anecdote big or small that you can share with us that might shed some light into the September collapse? Anything not important enough to print that we might find interesting?

Edited by Foulkey Reese, 17 November 2011 - 10:36 PM.

[SydneySox]

Hello mate.

My question concerns the ultra-fine balance that a reporter covering this team needs to maintain to tread the line between career and future credibility and the type of information people want/need/should/have a right to know.

Clearly the example is the chicken/beer clique of Texan Pitchers we've all now, post-season, read about. It's hard to imagine daily reporters would not have seen this, or other possibly unknown examples, at some level during the season without reporting. But it's understandable, on some level, why it would remain out of the papers until the season was finished.

So, and with no specifics requested, how do you come to terms with that access/right to know challenge personally?

And, do you think it's an acceptable system? Could it change? Should it?

Cheers

[yecul]

Baseball ops questions:

Who's running the show in Boston? Is this baseball ops by committee or does the buck stop somewhere?

What is your sense of their gameplan? Developments seem to be progressing slowly, they seem sluggish in decision making, and now where are questions of who really has the authority. Is this a case of a lot of smoke or just another case of us fans having a small piece of the story?

On-field:

What direction will they take the staff? Move a reliever (Bard, Aceves) to the rotation and sign some bullpen arms? Fill a rotation slot internally, bring in a starter and patch up the pen handing Bard the closer job? There are so many moving parts and dominoes lined up that we might have to wait for the first move for them to show their hand.

[AlNipper49]

I've seen a few quotes from players or their families praising Lackey for his relationship with other pitchers. Is this a case of an older guy who is a buddy is mis-labelled a mentor or does he really have a skill set that is frankly not apparent watching him on the field?

[yecul]

I do not like Lackey. He was awful when he played. He picked up a major injury. He is paid a lot of money for a number of years. And, most importantly, he was the main or one of the main contributors to the "bad behavior" that sank his fellow staff members and sank the team as a whole. Obviously he had help and there were a lot of cooks in that kitchen, but Lackey strikes me as the linchpin, the spark that really got the condition-abandoning and insubordinate behavior brush fire going.

How far off is this fan's perspective?

[Jnai]

I don't see a question like it so I'll throw it out there:

Can you talk a little about the use of "sabermetric"(WPA, UZR, xFIP, PitchFX, etc) statistics in sports journalism? How often do you find yourself consulting these? How do you try to communicate this information to your readers? How important are numbers or advanced stats, relative to "what you can see", in terms of formulating your opinions about players?

Thanks for the chat! =)

[Gordon Edes]

Hey, It's Gordon. Thanks for the invite to chat today. I have a 12:35 hit on ESPNBostonRadio.com with Adam Jones, then will come on with you folks. It's been a while since we've done this. Feel free to ask me anything that's on your minds. I can't promise I'll answer everything, but for my critics in SOSH as well as those who like my work, this is your chance to have at it.

I'm going to spend the next hour or so answering some of the questions that have already been posted.

See you around 12:45 or so.


Gordon

[MartyBarrettMVP]

Gordon:

Thanks for the chat!

I am curious about the perception of the Red Sox around the league, especially since September 1st. With the epic collapse, Tito and Theo's exit, Bob Hoehler's piece and the pervasive feeling that it was a front office smear job, the seemingly botched manager search and, as you say, Cherington being overruled by ownership, it seems that not only has the Red Sox brand taken a major PR hit, but that the ownership seems powerless or unwilling to rectify it. Do other teams have that sense and is ownership oblivious to it, or are they in major denial that there's a problem?

Thanks again!

Edited by MartyBarrettMVP, 18 November 2011 - 12:44 PM.

[drtooth]

Thank you for the chat, Gordon.

What direction do you see the Sox going in free agency this and does the possible hiring of Valentine change what the Sox may look for in the market?

[Gordon Edes]

Can you talk about how the accelerated news cycle (Twitter, blogging, et al) and the increased competition in the Boston media market has changed the way stories are both reported and not reported? Do you find there's a greater rush to be first rather than right and/or more emphasis on creating mountains out of molehills just to "win" the day's coverage race?

I call it feeding the Beast, whose appetite is both insatiable and indiscriminate, and I think it has significantly impacted the way we go about our business. In the rush to post stuff, there is much less time for reflection, for thoroughness, and for simply talking and observing. Time that a reporter might spend in casual conversation with a player or coach, sitting in the dugout and unexpectedly finding something out or developing a more complete picture of what is happening, is now often spent upstairs in the pressbox, posting what the manager said in his pregame media session, regardless of how trivial it might be. Even if it is something newsworthy, like an injury or benching, in the past instead of posting it immediately, you might have the chance to talk to all parties involved, or make a call or two for additional insight. Accuracy occasionally—some might argue often—gets sacrificed. For fans, the immediacy might be great—they find out stuff virtually as soon as it happens—but it often leads to snap judgments instead of a little deeper analysis. The message we get at ESPN is that it is not vital that we be first with breaking news but that we get it right, but the realiry is that they like to be first, too.

It might surprise you, but I like the opportunity to communicate with readers that Twitter affords. There have been plenty of times those of you at home have pointed out things I might have missed, or was shown on NESN that we didn’t see, or things I hadn’t thought of. I like the whole shared aspect of it. And since I don’t work for a newspaper anymore, I don’t have to write a “running” account of the game for a newspaper’s first edition—the closest thing we do is “Rapid Reaction” which doesn’t take as much time, so there is time to Twitter during the game.

But one reader did point out how our world is changed. I tweeted – I wrote “belatedly”—kudos to John Henry for going on with Mazz and Felger that day. Somebody replied that three hours ago was now considered “belatedly?’ Indeed.

Edited by Gordon Edes, 18 November 2011 - 09:51 AM.

[HangingW/ScottCooper]

Gordon,

Thanks for the doing chat, and great job asking the tough questions during this offseason. I had the good fortune of running into you in Cooperstown a few years ago during induction weekend and you took the time to talk Kaz Sasaki with my father and I.

My question is about the report coming out from Gresh and Zolack yesterday about Theo being the source for the Bob Hohler piece. Does this seem fishy to you? Prior to this report, the public opinion seemed to indicate that Theo wanted to get out from underneath some of the B.S., negotiations through the media, and smear campaigns, but now it turns out he may be a part of it? Is it out of the realm of possibility that there's more to this than what we know right now?

[TomRicardo]

How much have the Red Sox been focused on the manager search in comparison to free agents? Also have they reached out to Bedard yet?

[Gordon Edes]

Gordon, do you believe Theo Epstein's editorially presented reasons for leaving the Sox and taking a new job with the Cubs? It seems like he left out some other reasons, at least 18 million of them.

Rough,

I would never minimize the impact of a payday on someone's decision to make a move--we see it all the time, of course, with the players we cover--but I believe John Henry wanted Theo to stay, and would have designed a job to his liking that would have kept him there--though I don't see how he could have gotten the kind of total autonomy over baseball decisions that he has with the Cubs, not as long as Larry Lucchino remained in the picture. I talked to Theo in late August, when Buster first floated the possibility that the Cubs might make a run at Theo, and at that time Theo talked about the 10 years being long enough in one place, and that being Sox GM was not a job he was going to die in. I think given his age and where he was in his career, he was ready to build something new. I don't believe he left because of LL, and the Sox collapse gave him some pause about leaving, but it was his choice to go.

[Snowplow]

Tim Bogar has already been retained (although it isn't clear whether he'll be coaching 3B or not). Have you heard anything about what capacity Bogar will serve with the Red Sox?

[Lefty on the Mound]

Gordon,

Thanks for taking time out for this chat.

Do you know why the Red Sox have not interviewed Tony Pena for the managerial opening? Some on this board have suggested that it is due to his "small ball" approach. I think Pena would make an excellent manager for the Red Sox. MLB catchers have to think like an in-game manager while they are playing. He has experience as a manager and as a coach in a large market. He would manage the Sox as the power team they are which is quite different than the team he had in KC. Your thoughts?

Also, are you going to have another get-together when the Sox hit Wrigley this year?

[TheoShmeo]

Gordon,

My pet theory is that the anti-Sox reaction to SmearGate conferred a benefit in disguise on Tito. Sox fans and other Tito fans were understandably upset by what they perceived to be an effort to trash him on the way out the door. But that obscures the argument that Tito didn't cover himself in glory in 2011. True, he had many co-conspirators, and the blame is fairly shared by the players, Theo and rest of the front office, among others. Everyone played a part in the debacle. But I think Tito did too in that I don't believe he managed with urgency as things started to spiral, and I believe that he did lose the team (for whatever reasons). I also think that some of his in-game decision making was less than stellar in 2011. Bottom line, I believe that Tito's contribution to what happened in 2011 has been glossed over or minimized by those who are angry at whoever talked to Hohler.

Do you think there's truth to my theory? Do you think the perception that Tito didn't have a great 2011 factored into the Cardinals' choice of Matheny? Do you think Tito's performance in 2011 impacted Theo's lukewarm embrace of Tito for the Cubs job?

And just to be clear, I'm not anti-Tito or unmindful of his many fine attributes and the little fact that he was the manager during some extremely good and productive times for the Sox.

Unrelated question and probably a tough one to answer: If Bobby V gets the job, do you see him being able to work with accomplished veteran players who have been used to the free hand that Tito gave them? Do you see Valentine's presence as impacting free agents who might consider the Sox this year and in the future?

Thanks for joining us here for this chat. I think you do a terrific job and was very glad to see you come back to covering Sox when when you joined ESPN Boston.

Edited by TheoShmeo, 18 November 2011 - 10:11 AM.

[Gordon Edes]

Gordon, at the time of the Hohler article you mentioned that you were aware of Tito's (non)issue with painkillers and that you declined to report it. Without necessarily needing to get into the sordid details of that affair, can you talk about as a journalist where you draw the line at public versus private for the athletes you covet and what your thought process is when you hear about details such as that?

Thanks for doing this chat. I probably don't need to tell you that your stock (on this board at least, whatever that's worth) has risen significantly during the past month plus, and with my own medicore grounding in journalism ethics your conduct has been well above most of your peers. It's easy to go for the cheap pop with this fanbase and you've declined to do so. Well done.

JimBo,

Let me set the record straight. I said I found out about the marital issues, and even that I learned late in the game. I did not know about any issue regarding the pain medication until I read Hohler that morning.

Now, let's talk about what I would and would not report. I do believe the people I cover are entitled to some degree of private life. What is happening in someone's marriage is not my business, nor does it fall under the purview of the public's right to know. Guess I'd never make a good gossip columnist. To me, the fact that Tito was estranged from his wife was not germane to the team's performance in September. He had been estranged when the team was 81-42 or whatever for those four months aftr the slow start. As I wrote, John Henry got divorced in 2007 and no one suggested that had an impact on his handling of the club as it won the World Series.

Now, as for the pain-killing medication. If I had been told that the club suspected Francona was abusing pain medication, I would not have ignored that. That is something that obviously could have impacted his on-the-job performance. Given that the Globe ran that story on the front page and would have had to run it through editor Marty Baron as well as the newspaper's attorneys, they had to be pretty confident of their sourcing. What I objected to is that if you are going to present it in the context of a reason for the team's collapse, or even publish it at all, you'd better be able to cite some examples of how it affected Francona. I saw the manager most every day. I never saw him late, i never saw him display any evidence of erratic behavior, slur words, you name it. The Globe, IMO, wasn't able to display any evidence that Francona's behavior was impacted, yet still floated the anonymous concerns of people whose own agenda, by virtue of their anonymity, was unclear. The only on-the-record discussion of the medication was from Tito, which was like asking him, "when did you stop beating your wife?" A no comment would have implied guilt. How come there was no on-the-record reactions from ANYONE in the organization to such a damning allegation, even if it was a no comment. Wasn't there an obligation from any one of Tito's bosses--owners, CEO,Theo--to address that issue? That's why I thought it was a smear and terribly damaging to Tito's reputation. I would not have handled it that way, and to present it in the context of an explanation for the team's collapse was very sensationalistic and disturbing.

[Gordon Edes]

Do you find it easier to cover the Red Sox as part of a national organization than it was as part of a local newspaper that not only was a part owner of the team, but perhaps relied much more heavily on staying in the teams good graces to maintain access so as to do their best to maintain circulation?

Lose,

That's a great question, and speaks directly to how perception can be as important as reality. A perceived conflict of interest can be just as harmful as a real one. I honestly never felt hindered in my reporting by the fact the NYTimes Company owned a piece of the team; it truly never was a factor in shaping my opinion on an issue. But I know that a reader could feel differently, and understand why. Shoot, I as a reader sometimes have the same doubts in other contexts. I think ESPN, because of its many ties to the sports it covers, faces similar struggles with perception as well. I'll be honest, I think people will question how I cover the Bobby Valentine candidacy because Bobby and I are both employees of ESPN. If I praise Bobby, some will think it's because we have the same boss and on a couple of occasions have worked together. If I'm perceived to withhold criticism, same thing, or if I break news, same. Not easy.

But I can tell you, and I hope you can see it in the way that I have tried to be fair in my coverage, and offering criticism when I thought it was warranted, that I wasn't worried about staying in the team's good graces. You hope, even when you criticize, that the object of your criticism isn't going to shut down access because of it because of your track record, but that often isn't the case.

[Gordon Edes]

Are the stories about bad habits in the Red Sox clubhouse mostly an over reaction to a bad finish? Put another way was this year, from your observations, any different from other years?

Reggie,

In a word, yes. I thought it was an overreaction. What did Theo say last weekend, that these guys were angels or choirboys compared to the '04 crew? Jonny Lester was right: The only difference was that the '04 team won and this team didn't. I talked to a Hall of Fame-bound manager a week or so ago and he said you'd find behavior not much different in 29 other clubhouses. There is a lot of stuff we don't see anymore, because the physical aspect of clubhouses have changed. Teams now have a lot more areas that are off limits to the media than in the past, where they eat and have access to beer. There had been a time--I think in the aftermath of the whole Wil Cordero domestic assault case--that they banned booze from the clubhouse--but those rules were relaxed under Grady and Tito and the new regime. Do I think Josh Beckett allowed himself to get out of shape? Yes. The physical evidence is there for all of us to see. Did I think these guys were gorging themselves on beer and fried chicken? No. I think there were very clear baseball-related reasons why the team lost.

[Gordon Edes]

Gordon,
How much of what Ben Cherington will do as Red Sox GM will be similar to what Theo did and what will be different? What traits does Ben bring to the table that Theo didn't have? Seeing as Ben also worked for Dan Duquette in a much different environment of running baseball ops, will we see some cross-pollenation of Dan's ways and Theo's way into Ben's running of the baseball ops?

Red October,

I think the manager's search, and the virtually identical list of candidates, shows that there won't be a dramatic departure in the core values Ben brings to the job. Ben could not have risen to the place he did under Theo unless he was on the same page as Theo in terms of organizational approach. Remember, Theo entrusted Ben with writing much of the "Red Sox Way" organizational manual for the team's minor leaguers. I think Ben actually has a stronger background in player evaluation than Theo does, but Theo, for all of his beliefs in the new statistical metrics, also put great faith in his talent evaluators as well. Ben is different in temperament than Theo, which will make some difference, but while Dan deserves credit for identifying Ben's potential and hiring him, I suspect Ben has influenced to a far greater degree by theo's methodology.

[Gordon Edes]

Ben Cherington said in a recent interview that he had more of a "natural bias" than his predecessor toward using subjective, personality/character factors in evaluating players. Do you think this difference is real, or is Cherington emphasizing this because it's what the fanbase wants to hear right now? And if it's real, what impact, if any, do you think it will have on the Sox' off-season decisions?

Savin,

I think I'd like to have a conversation with Ben about that before I form a strong opinion, because I think Theo did place considerable emphasis on those factors. I'll give you an example. It would have been easy to evaluate Crawford's baseball skills, based on a breakdown of his metrics and watching him play. But Theo assigned Allard Baird to track Crawford for a half a season to learn as much as he could about all those "subjective, personality/character issues" as he could. The Sox decided Crawford was temperamentally suited to thrive here and was worth the investment they made. They may well prove to be wrong about that--I believe Crawford will have a bounce back year, much like Beltran had in his second year with the Mets--but they took those factors seriously.

[Gordon Edes]

Gordo,

A lot of information has become public since the Sox season ended. Some of this information, in light of the collapse, makes perfect sense. Other pieces of information seem to raise more questions rather than give possible reasons for the team and their late season problems. Things like Pete Abe's statements that Gonzalez was complaining about the schedule or the actual drinking in the dugout. My question is that because some of the information now public has been proven false by more than one person, how reliable are these 'team sources' given all of the information/accusations?

Dogman, there's a reason you're told not to believe everything you read. Some of it is not true, and I think a reader's inclination to believe something should depend on their confidence in the one telling the story. If a reporter has shown over time to be accurate in both his reporting and judgments, then you should tend to find his version of things more believable, especially when there are conflicting accounts.

But here's the humbling part. I have always maintained that even the best reporters know only a fraction of what is really happening. We get parts of the story, often shaded by the ones dissembling the information, people who often have their own agendas. We strive to learn as much as we can, and sort through the stuff we learn, but it is useful for reporters to be humble enough to recognize they rarely glimpse the whole picture. I think, for example, that I learned much of what went down during the Sox courtship of A-Rod, but I'm sure there was stuff I didn't know. Even today, I kick myself for not speaking more to Lucchino about that story.

[Gordon Edes]

OK, I'm going to be tied up from now until 12:45, but I'll be back.

--ge

[The Gray Eagle]

Hi Gordon,

as a sort of follow-up to one of your responses earlier-- you said Allard Baird scouted Crawford heavily before the Sox signed him. Do you know if Baird was also responsible for scouting Lackey, Jenks and Cameron before the Red Sox signed them as well, or did someone else have the responsibility for scouting some of those players?

Also, is there still a free keg of beer provided to the media in the Fenway press box during every game, like there used to be? If not, when did they get rid of that?

Thanks.

[Trautwein's Degree]

Also as a follow up, how does Ben's temperment differ from Theo's temperament?

[Gordon Edes]

Hey, I'm back. Thanks for your patience. After the obvious breakdown in conditioning this September, I've redoubled my efforts to show up in camp in good condition, so I just finished my workout and radio interview with Adam Jones. For those keeping score, I'm down 30 since last winter.

Anyway, let me get back to your questions.

[Gordon Edes]

Two questions:

1. How do you think that Dan Duquette will do as the Orioles GM? In the piece for ESPN, it doesn't sound as if you think he will do a good job. Do you feel that he really has learned his lesson since running the Sox?

2. Do you think that the publicity hit that the Sox management took over the last two months is going to follow them into next season and the seasons after? Were they shaken up about how fast the worm turned and do you think it will effect how they will react to players, etc. leaving from now on?

John,

Your read of my Dan Duquette column is pretty accurate, though the biggest point I was trying to make is that Dan would be a real tough sell to a beaten-down Orioles fan base worn down by Angelos' dysfunctional running of that club. I think Dan's management style alienated many people, the least important of whom are the media. I think he alienated players, fellow GMs, managers, members of his staff with a style that was sorely lacking in communication. I also think being out of the game for nearly a decade is a tough thing to overcome. Dan is a very smart guy, and people can change and grow. A little story. Dan had every right to be ticked off by my column, but who should approach me when I was sitting at Logan and waiting for my flight to Milwaukee but Dan, who made no mention of the column and amiably chatted about a number of things. He is so clearly delighted at having another shot that maybe he will do some things differently this time. But there are certainly reasons to be skeptical.

As for your second question, the Sox have some repair work to do, but last season's collapse will become a distant memory if the team performs in 2012. Isn't that always the way, especially for Sox fans?