Some nuggets from this weekend:

The Almighty Bruce is tired of the fans' "revisionist history" that Prior and Wood are always hurt.

The Cubs have always been accurate reporting on Prior and Wood.

He claimed to enjoy a heated debate on-air with a co-host. Now, it seems that Silvy and Carmen's "vacation" wasn't because of the on-air fighting with Bruce, however, the events before that vacation still stand.

Bruce bragged that 1000 is unbiased because they don't carry a team, unlike some other stations. I love a shifting standard.

He bragged a number of times about Piersal and how he's one of the better analysts around. He mentioned that the guy used to have his own talk show 30 years ago.

This guy really loves to pile it on, doesn't he?

Levine and Ofman are both shills, but seemingly for a higher purpose. They rarely criticize anyone for any reason, except for members of their own teams. Here's a question though, what's more valuable, Levine and Ofman's connections to higher ups throughout MLB so they can break stories, or their objectivity (or lack thereof)? Let's be realistic, do you think if Levine or Ofman criticized Cubs or Sox brass the way the hosts do, that Hendry, Baker, Guillen, or KW would go on their shows are regularly as they do? Hit and Run on SCR were promoing having both Hendry and KW on today's maiden voyage for '06, Levine had Baker on yesterday. When was the last time Baker was on B&B or MJH? Both of those guys get the scoop and the good interviews, but they both lack the ability to criticize.

_________________
Nothing clever or witty to put here.....

You nailed it Hummer. What is the use of having a baseball insider that no one will talk to. Just let the hosts do their thing and the beat reporters do their thing. We are all smart enough to figure it all out. Besides, none of the higher ups ever answer a tough question anyway.

_________________
We all have private ails. The troublemakers are they who need public cures for their private ails.- Eric Hoffer

Merv Griffin and Mike Douglas had their own talk shows 30 years ago, and I don't care what they have to say either. I've said before that for my money Harry and Jimmy were the best pairing Chicago's ever seen, but that was a LONG time ago. Jimmy was great...in 1977! Anything after 1980, not so much.

_________________
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public." ~ H.L. Mencken

[/quote]Levine and Ofman are both shills, but seemingly for a higher purpose. They rarely criticize anyone for any reason, except for members of their own teams. Here's a question though, what's more valuable, Levine and Ofman's connections to higher ups throughout MLB so they can break stories, or their objectivity (or lack thereof)? Let's be realistic, do you think if Levine or Ofman criticized Cubs or Sox brass the way the hosts do, that Hendry, Baker, Guillen, or KW would go on their shows are regularly as they do? Hit and Run on SCR were promoing having both Hendry and KW on today's maiden voyage for '06, Levine had Baker on yesterday. When was the last time Baker was on B&B or MJH? Both of those guys get the scoop and the good interviews, but they both lack the ability to criticize.[/quote]


If these guys are so bad(and yes they ARE shills--Bruce mostly),,,then whom should either or both of these Stations bring in???? Someone who would be fair yet not be affraid to criticize more than Bruce & George??

That's not going to happen. The clubs have the stations by the short hairs because they control what personnel goes on what station & when. Jessie & George get the guests they do precisely because they temper any criticism with an apologetic qualifier 1st or bend over backwards to "give both sides of the story".

Levine said that 1000 is unbiased because they don't carry a team. So, basically Levin is saying that the station was biased when they had the White Sox. What an idiot.

Well, I prefer honesty, truth, and common sense anyday. If it's true that an on-air personality must falsely accuse fans of revisionist history in order to get the "big" interviews, then one has to wonder if those big interviews are actually worthwhile.

And since I missed the big Dusty interview, can anyone let me know if we learned anything from it? I am going to guess it was the same old tripe, but I'm ready to be surprised.

And yes indeed, claiming to be unbiased due to lack of affiliation with a team is certainly an implication that there was bias previously, when they were affiliated. Not to mention, that statement is in stark contrast to the point being made in this thread, that Bruce is sucking up to the teams.

Nobody has anything to say about Bruce's Dusty interview?




I enjoyed Silvy and Carmen's tape this morning of Bruce from exactly one year ago, where he suggested Corey Patterson was in for a giant year, perhaps ending with 35-40 home runs.


I guess I'm just not seeing why he's so highly regarded for his alleged expertise.

24, you posed an excellent question. I've listened to Bruce and struggle with the premise that he has offered any brilliant insights into the game of baseball. I think the guys from Baseball Prospectus offer MUCH better insights on player evaluations and baseball strategy. Maybe it's the nature of the beast but Bruce comes off as an apologist. The Corey Patterson prediction is a perfect example-make an outrageous prediction on the upside and if it doesn't come through, ignore it. BUT, if you are right, well, then you are the players best friend-someone who stuck with them before they hit it big.

I heard some interview with Dusty and, as usual, he had nothing to say, dude, that we haven't heard before. I'm still waiting for a reporter to ask Dusty why he didn't take that waste of human life Kent Mercker and release him after he was whining about Chip Caray and Steve Stone when the team was imploding in late 2004.

_________________
"Phineas J. Whoopie, you're the greatest"
Tennessee Tuxedo

Can somebody give examples of stories that have been broken by Levin and Ofman ?

I also find their reporting, especially Ofman's since I hear him more often of late, just comical. All they do is report what it's in the papers, it seems to me. Now, that's not necessarily their fault because the hosts want to talk about what they read in the newspaper, but very rarely do any of these spring training reports offer any significant news that I wasn't already aware of.

Well, those of us guilty of "revisionist history" have another imaginary Kerry Wood injury to add to our list of meretricious fallacies.

Bruce mentioned again this weekend his theory of revisionist history, but this time he directed it at just "certain media outlets", during his interview with Jim Hendry. But the only example they talked about (and I think it was Hendry who introduced it) was a report that Prior was set to have Tommy John surgery at some point last year. Does anyone recall where that report came from? There's a vast difference between a legitimate "media outlet" and the underground rumor mill.

Was it an internet rumor? I wonder if people (and I can't directly accuse Levine or Hendry here) who are not among the younger generation still don't fully comprehend the internet. They can't separate in their minds the legitimate websites from the junk. If someone at Imastupididiot.com says that Mark Prior is a visitor from Mars, they draw the conclusion that the "internet" is full of lies.

Anyway, Jim Hendry insinuated that he takes offense at being called a "liar" in regards to Cubs injuries. What he maybe fails to understand is that he's not being accused of the type of lying that indicates a person is morally bankrupt (or, maybe he's looking to play the role of victim here). Nonetheless, let's examine a statement he made during this same interview: He defended Prior's injury history by saying he started 27 games last year.

Now, firstly, 27 games is quite a bit short from a full season. But, since he was nailed by that line drive, we can let that one pass. However, it's also true that Prior was not exactly ace-caliber most of last year, and didn't resemble the Mark Prior we've seen in the past. That does not necessarily mean he was hurt, but if he wasn't, and that's the new, real Mark Prior, the Cubs are in big trouble. I tend to think he was hurt, and therefore, Hendry is being, let's say "less than forthcoming with the truth" about Prior's health last year.

And of course right now his workouts are closed to the public, and last we knew, he was throwing towels.

So, I'm really not sure where Hendry and Levine can rightly claim the truth-and-honesty high-ground here.

Prior --> On the shelf

Wood --> On the shelf

Bruce --> Full of crap

Hendry --> Not telling the truth



In other words, business as usual!


24 Guy --> I told you so.