Two exceptional opportunities in Baltimore

And not just the gamer. There's the notebook ... and the blog ... and the Twitter updates ... Sunday notes column?

 

IJAG, I feel exactly the same way. Pretty much everyone in this place is selling ads/making deals/promoting something, and most are far more concerned with the ads in my mags than the content. It just isn't the same as battling deadline every night in the newsroom.

 

I've often said, and will continue to say, they couldn't pay me enough to be a baseball beat writer.

 

Done right, the baseball beat at a major daily is one of the most demanding jobs in newspaper journalism. There is no offseason -- in fact, in many towns, the offseason is more exciting than the season -- and very few days off. If a story breaks on what was supposed to be your day off, you will be expected to work unless you are vacationing on a distant planet. When I was in Chicago, I knew the beat writers well and was in awe of the amount and quality of work they did. You have to be driven by more than a love of baseball to do a job like this. Good luck to those who apply.

 

Baltimore is a place I would have loved to settled down 13 years ago.

I don't know shit about the paper or the details, but that is a cool town. Just be careful where you live, but it's nice areas are very eclectic and very cool.

 

What people quickly come to realize is that the game stories are only a minor part of covering a beat. There's all the rumors of trades, signing, coach firings, hirings, etc.

 

I did about 150-155 games in "07 as a beat writer, including all six weeks of spring training. I missed one game because of food poisoning (from Jack in the Box, not a press box). Even then, I tried to go to the games on my days off just to make sure I didn't miss anything.

 

The only jobs where you probably have to be more "on" are the White House and maybe Congress. Even at the statehouse level, the stakes probably aren't as high as on an MLB beat.

 

Not necessarily. One of the best pieces of advice I ever got: Hope you're not covering a .500 team. If you cover a winner, great, lots of good stories to tell. If you cover a team that loses 100 games, there are going to be lots of good stories to tell as well ... you won't have a team that might consider itself pretty good with one more free agent or one fewer injury, you'll have a team ready for the wrecking ball. Disgruntled players, GM's managers and coaches on shaky ground, rookies trying to break in, veterans trying to hold onto their careers, guys playing for their stats, agents and scouts who can tell you what your team should be doing, marketing guys desperately staging promotions to get the stadium up to half-full ... there are a ton of great stories on a terrible team. If the team is that bad and the season is over in June, you shouldn't be writing gamers in July or August.

 

This. Fortunately, I've never had to do it, but I've here and there had to cover a losing team and dig up something to write about. I couldn't fathom doing it on a regular basis.

I suppose it's bad in other sports, too, but considering the number of games, overall popularity of the sport, etc., I cannot imagine a worse beat than a bad baseball team and dealing with that many grumpy players/staff on a regular basis.

 

Do we know each other? Just kidding, but that has been my theory for at least 20 years. Covering a .500 team is just the worst. They go on a losing streak and you rip them and then they briefly turn it around and tell you how wrong you were. Then they go on a winning streak and you start writing about how well they're playing and they go in the tank. You're always wrong covering a .500 team.

And a .500 team at the trading deadline is always involved -- both as a buyer and a seller -- so that can be a month of hell chasing every rumor under the sun.