Jay Mariotti resigns

Has anyone keyed Mariotti's car yet?

 

I know I shouldn't be surprised, but the fact that Mariotti has an agent makes me puke in my mouth. A lot. As in, Stand By Me a lot.

Can you imagine being his agent? Dictionary definition of thankless I would imagine.

 

When I was in the business I had lawyer acquaintances who said non-competes rested on some of the shakiest of grounds legally, if push ever came to shove.

 

Oh, I'm certainly not taking up for Mariotti. That's for damn sure. I could honestly care less about the situation. I just thought it was an awful cheap and classless tactic.

He criticizes Mariotti for doing the same thing he's doing.

 

Mariotti says he's not coming to Boston.

http://news.bostonherald.com/business/media/view/2008_08_28_Chicago_sports_scribe_Jay_Mariotti_says_he_s_not_coming_to_Boston/srvc=home&position=6

Jay Mariotti, the big name sports columnist who abruptly quit the Chicago Sun-Times because he says newspapers are dying, shot down speculation today that he’s coming to Boston.

“In all honesty, I’ve not spoken to anybody about any job in Boston nor has my agent because I talked to him last night,” Mariotti told the Herald in a phone interview today.

“This is crazy. They say I’m coming to NESN, they say I’m coming to the Globe, they say I’m coming to WEEI. I have had no discussions with anybody in Boston about the Red Sox [team stats], Tom Brady [stats]’s foot or me working there,” Mariotti said.

 

Is that the same kind of "honesty" he used when he said he left the Sun-Times because of its Web site while neglecting to mention that he apparently threw a hissy fit over the Obama-Cubs thing?

 

Gee, Bubbles, now I know where you're coming from. You want me to shut up so that leaves more space for you to type about puking in your mouth. That'll help the board, sure.

You need to be careful about assuming that a generalization is an absolute. With rare exceptions -- I wasn't a big fan of Lynn Hoppes' APSE rouser, for instance -- I haven't ragged on management folks here by name or market below the rank of publisher. I'm not painting anyone with a broad brush, but a lot of paint sticks for a reason. Doesn't appear that the exceptions to my generalizations -- your bosses, maybe, or whatever good ones you're defending here -- are having all that much success at swimming against the tide. If they were, we'd hear about them. And if their ways were the way, the tide might actually turn and no longer be the tide.

So you're right, I'm kind of fixed in my orientation to one of the major ills of this business: Lousy management. I expect leaders to lead, and not just when times are good. When such leaders fail, it's the troops who usually pay the price. You can grow tired of those messages, but it's like not wanting to hear that cigarettes cause cancer. What would you rather hear? That the bosses are the answer? Hope that works out for you.

 

Just as long as you know you're kind of fixed in your orientation, you've won half the battle.

 

That theory makes a ton of sense.

Unless JM already had an offer elsewhere and wanted to get himself out of his contract. Kind of like "suicide by cop."

 

Agreed.
I like Ebert. But I thought it was a cheap and easy shot as well.
But then again, judging by the paper's front page, he's just following the lead and piling on.

 

The line from Modrowski's blog (linked earlier in the thread) would seem to go along with that:

I'm imagining the conversation that would have ensued, had Mariotti decided to take his leave in person instead of by e-mail ...
"I quit."
"Yeah, sure, Jay."
"No, I really mean it this time."
"Mmm-hmm."
"Seriously. I'm done."
"Really? Nice knowing you, then, and we'll need that security passcard back."
"Wait. What?"