LaRussa and Bernie Miklasz argument

Did you forget the sarcasm font, or are you that much of an idiot?

 

Maybe a little of both. I was being sarcastic. Clue No. 1= "a bunch of dumfucks like us", I might call the rest of you dumfucks without being sarcastic, but when I include myself, then I am joking. ;D

 

Referring to Tony's not wanting to point out that Kenny Rogers was cheating in the WS because he didn't want to offend the Tigers' manager. Even though his players were affected by the cheating, Tony cared more about his friendship than his players in that instance. And there have been other times where Tony's sense of honor towards an opponent has contradicted his role as a manager and the leader of the team. Instead of defending his players on a call, he takes into account how a friend on the other team feels and will back off "out of respect for them." I like Tony and enjoyed talking to him when I covered the team and when I worked in STL radio, but his priorities tend to be a bit skewed from time to time...

 

I figured. Well played.

 

Is it possible La Russa got upset with the Cubs-bashing article because he and Lou Piniella are childhood friends? I haven't seen that written anywhere. That would be along the same lines as La Russa laying off Kenny Rogers because of his friendship with Jim Leyland.

 

My point exactly...But he did the same thing last year to Jim Hayes from Fox Sports Midwest when a pre-game report he did was broadcast on the big screen prior to the game ripping the Pirates. LaRussa got all huffy then, too...

 

Probably because he's Tony LaRussa and he invented baseball

 

Just saw this in the AP story...

Is this somehow related to the P-D and Miklasz? I'm not near STL, don't care about the Cardinals and honestly have no idea.

 

Those damn "media" with "their own agendas." Why don't they just come in for the big win.

But this will probably get Tony swinging a fungo soon (forgive me if I'm d-bing another thread or something).

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/F8CB7D50A3D71BA2862572CD00832041?OpenDocument

 

That writer better be right -- he went way out there on a limb based on the testimony of an un-named customer and his wife. And it is one thing to write that the guy had been drinking, but to basically write that he was drunk and stumbling around is a tough sell if it turns out he has no or little alcohol in his system.

Still, I think this story is proper even if the tragedy just happened, but boy, he better be right.

 

You're not kidding. My paper's policy is no unnamed sources. I can understand why the people didn't want their names out there because sports fans can be a tad on the extreme side sometimes and maybe these people feared retribution for their comments. Having said that, though, it's been my experience that nothing will ruin credibility quicker than running an unnamed source and then having the story be proven wrong. It may not even be the writer's fault, but it's still a risky deal...

 

Jake is a very good news reporter.
I'm not surprised at all Vince and his wife didn't want to be named. To accuse a Cardinal, particularly a fallen one, is like heresy in St. Louis. This isn't being insincere at all. This is trying to explain a deadly accident.