An honest question about Mike Scioscia's future

[mp170.6]

1 hour ago, Taylor said:

I agree that when it comes to government officials and the activities of the government, the media has an obligation to publish what they learn.

This is f'ing baseball. Respect Mike Scioscia's desire to retire quietly, without creating a media circus.

 

24 minutes ago, True Grich said:

I normally don't think about such things, but this seems different.  It's not a trade rumor or about someone breaking the law.  It seems like a private matter that for all intensive reasons should remain private.  There's no harm in Scioscia keeping his intentions private and he has said he'll address it after the season. That should be good enough.  This just bugs me.

 

The problem with this thinking is that guys like Barry Bonds would agree with you 100%.

I'm sure he would tell you that his "steroid" use was a private matter and the media should have kept their mouth shut. 

[UndertheHalo]

1 hour ago, Taylor said:

I agree that when it comes to government officials and the activities of the government, the media has an obligation to publish what they learn.

This is f'ing baseball. Respect Mike Scioscia's desire to retire quietly, without creating a media circus.

Dude, they aren’t reporting on personal details of his home life.  They’re just saying he’s made a plan to retire.  No disrespect.  This is how it is in all of professional sports.   This is not a private professional life. 

Mike Scoiscia can ride off into the sunset and never be bothered again after he's managed his last game if that’s what he wants.  But until then, the sports media is going to talk about him.  Per usual. 

Edited August 6, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[yk9001]

I'd like to see this same group discussion during hot stove and the opening of free agency.

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

It’s news. You break the information or someone else does.  You’re in the public spotlight, you’re game.  Clearly whomever leaked it to rosenthal wanted the news out there.  

There’s no protection anymore. That died with Ruth.   What make me laugh is that rosenthal got the scoop before all the other local hacks in town. Shows how little relationship the local media has with the Halos inner circle. 

[Puget Sound Angel]

Sosh is a public figure. He willingly put himself in that spotlight. He does not have the privacy the rest of us enjoy because of it. It comes with a high visibility job.

[Dtwncbad]

It is also fair to say MS has enjoyed a decade of NOT really having to deal with much speculation.

I can hardly feel sorry for him if he has to deal with some chatter ONCE at the end of his 10 year contract.

[T.G.]

47 minutes ago, mp170.6 said:

 

 

The problem with this thinking is that guys like Barry Bonds would agree with you 100%.

I'm sure he would tell you that his "steroid" use was a private matter and the media should have kept their mouth shut. 

apples and oranges.

[Angel Oracle]

Respect the guy, but also realize that his time should be up after this season.    A much improved farm system now needs a more modern thinking manager to guide the MLB team and those young players. 

[Dtwncbad]

22 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

Respect the guy, but also realize that his time should be up after this season.    A much improved farm system now needs a more modern thinking manager to guide the MLB team and those young players. 

I agree respect him but how much more "respect" can a manager get???

He has been locked into a long term deal with ownership backing him the whole way.  He has faced very, very little criticism in the last 18 years compared to every other manager in baseball.

I don't love him and I don't hate him.  No need to pile on him at the point, of course, but I also don't think anyone owes him more respect than has already been bulldozed into his lap for 19 years.

He has had it pretty great here.  I sure hope he doesn't become a whiner about stories like Roaenthal's. . .

[Troll Daddy]

Mike Scioscia future looks great ... he's still young and probably one of the most respected and prepared managers in the game. It's laughable when some believe he is old school. Scioscia is a modern day manager and young or old players like playing for him.

It's time for a change in Anaheim but that takes nothing away from his abilities as manager. 

[JoJo26]

IT'S SO SIMPLE:

Arte's wife was blabbing about JOSH PAUL at the dry cleaners - and a 17 year old kid working part time at the place overheard her. He told his father who passed it along as an anonymous source.

COME ON GUYS...it's all ball bearings nowadays...

[Jeff Fletcher]

I think there are different layers of people in Scioscia’s circle, some closer than others. Everyone has an idea of what he’s going to do, either because he’s told them directly or made comments hinting at it or made comments that someone else relayed to you and so on and so forth. It’s like that telephone game. 

It is up to the reporter to decide how reliable the information is that he’s getting. Is someone telling you what he knows or just what he suspects or just what he heard someone else suspect?

Also, what does “expected” mean? 90 percent? 75 percent? 51 percent?

Thats why all this is dicey, from a reporting standpoint. 

Rosenthal is the best, though, and I don’t believe he’d be going off half-cocked. I did sit 6 inches away from Scioscia and he looked me in the eye and insisted he had made no decisions. 

This whole thing could be a game of semantics. Maybe in Scioscia’s mind if he’s 90 percent sure he’s doing X, he still hasn’t decided because it’s not 100 percent. To someone else who knows Scioscia is 90 percent leaning in one direction, he has. 

A month ago, I had been telling people I thought it was 60 percent he wouldn’t be back, so did I “expect” him to be gone? 

[Jeff Fletcher]

Also, it’s worth noting that the use of the word “expected” means it’s a third party’s perception. 

Scioscia plans to step down 

Scioscia is expected to step down. 

See the difference? One implies that he’s made a decision and the other just implies that someone is predicting his decision. 

If all you’ve got is the latter, you’ve got to be super careful reporting it because people will interpret them the same, especially as the story gets circulated around and repeated. 

[T.G.]

I guess I have more of a problem with the way Nightengale framed the discussion. 

[Angelsfan1984]

I believe he's walking away but is denying it simply to keep his players working hard. I've seen plenty of examples of "good leaders" in certain workplaces maintain the notion that nothing has changed to only walk away or resign a couple months after project completion. The media circus of him walking away would detract from the current goal of winning ball games despite the standings. If he mails it in the last part of the season and he does have aspirations of being in a front office capacity that would reflect negatively on him as a person not just a manager. At the end of the day he's given the team and organization the best he has, I just think at this point new leadership is necessary if not for anything other than uncertainty. When people get too comfortable they tend to not work to their highest potential at a subconscious level.  

[Dtwncbad]

9 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Also, it’s worth noting that the use of the word “expected” means it’s a third party’s perception. 

Scioscia plans to step down 

Scioscia is expected to step down. 

See the difference? One implies that he’s made a decision and the other just implies that someone is predicting his decision. 

If all you’ve got is the latter, you’ve got to be super careful reporting it because people will interpret them the same, especially as the story gets circulated around and repeated. 

I know your example was just an example but he wouldn't be stepping down.  His contract is over.

Scioscia does not plan to pursue new deal.

Or

Scioscia not expected to pursue new deal.

[tomsred]

2 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

As long as the writer didn't make it up, I really don't care how Mike Scioscia feels about this being reported.

Mike can put some pants on and deal with it.

The bottom line is, after a 10 year contract it is NORMAL AND EXPECTED that people want to know any details about the plan going forward.

I can't make my brain view it as some violation of his privacy.  His employment with the Angels is not really private.

He can comment on it, not comment on it, whatever he wants.

But if he expects nobody to discuss it or report details on any developments, his expectations are out of whack.

 

Mike did deal with it, and we all have his answer, because he chose to make it public.  End of story.  And quite to the contrary about what you said above, his employment details are a private matter between both Mike and the organization.  The Angels are not a public company, they are privately owned.  Our view of Mike's contract, and the details therein, are limited to what the organization thinks should be released.  Whether or not his contract gets renewed is a private matter, until someone within ownership or the organization releases information about it.  It doesn't matter how many years his current contract is for.

I hate to break this to you, but baseball fans don't have any more rights than an average consumer.  If you are a shareholder of a public company, yes you do have a few more rights for information, but the type and amount of disclosure is controlled by federal federal and state regulations.  If you own a private company, you have no obligation to disclose anything about how you run your company to the general public, as long as you comply with federal and state laws.

Two nights ago in another thread that I would only believe Rosenthal's report if their was some confirmation from the organization.  We got our confirmation, .....it was poppycock!

[Dtwncbad]

3 minutes ago, tomsred said:

Mike did deal with it, and we all have his answer.  End of story.  And quite to the contrary about what you said above, his employment details are a private matter between both Mike and the organization.  The Angels are not a public company, they are privately owned.  Our view of Mike's contract, and the details therein, are limited to what the organization thinks should be released.  Whether or not his contract gets renewed is a private matter, until someone within ownership or the organization releases information about it.  It doesn't matter how many years his current contract is for.

You said a lot, most if which has nothing to do with any part of my points.

Baseball contracts are open knowledge.  That's the way the whole thing is set up.  We know everybody's contract, how much they make and the length if the deal.

Discussions about plans going forward with Scioscia should be expected.  Questions should be expected.  Speculation should be expected.

Mike Scioscia is not entitled to any expectation that fans not want information, that reporters not ask questions or for fans and reporters to not speculate.

I have no idea how you ended up talking about the Angels not being a public traded company.

 

[Jeff Fletcher]

15 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I know your example was just an example but he wouldn't be stepping down.  His contract is over.

Scioscia does not plan to pursue new deal.

Or

Scioscia not expected to pursue new deal.

Yes, that’s a fair point that was brought up by several people when the story broke. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

If any public figure wants to keep anything private, he should not tell anyone. 

And if he tells someone and they tell a reporter, you should be mad at the person you trusted, not the reporter. 

[mtangelsfan]

2 hours ago, mp170.6 said:

 

 

The problem with this thinking is that guys like Barry Bonds would agree with you 100%.

I'm sure he would tell you that his "steroid" use was a private matter and the media should have kept their mouth shut. 

Are you really comparing the two?

Good grief

[mtangelsfan]

4 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

If any public figure wants to keep anything private, he should not tell anyone. 

And if he tells someone and they tell a reporter, you should be mad at the person you trusted, not the reporter. 

Should a reporter not confirm their story?

[UndertheHalo]

Both the reports from Rosenthal and Nightengale reference sources not Scoiscia himself, and they say so.  I really don’t see any foul play here. 

[Barrett]

1 hour ago, Angel Oracle said:

Respect the guy, but also realize that his time should be up after this season.    A much improved farm system now needs a more modern thinking manager to guide the MLB team and those young players. 

Please tell me the more modern manager you are thinking about? Or are we talking TV personality that the Yankees got. When you say modern thinking manager the first guy I think of is a guy who's never managed in his life before this year, not even a random Denny's, was never a captain of any kind and really had no responsibilities other than a back up 3rd baseman and a TV personality.

[tomsred]

23 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

You said a lot, most if which has nothing to do with any part of my points.

Baseball contracts are open knowledge.  That's the way the whole thing is set up.  We know everybody's contract, how much they make and the length if the deal.

Discussions about plans going forward with Scioscia should be expected.  Questions should be expected.  Speculation should be expected.

Mike Scioscia is not entitled to any expectation that fans not want information, that reporters not ask questions or for fans and reporters to not speculate.

I have no idea how you ended up talking about the Angels not being a public traded company.

 

Baseball contracts are open knowledge because  the owners have decided to publish them, not because they are required by law or regulation to do it.  I suppose it's because part of the game is managing contracts to fit within certain limitations with regard to the luxury tax threshold for example.  Plus doesn't everyone want to know what other people make monetarily, it's heavily ground into our society.

The public can discuss this all they want, but they do so without having useful detailed information about plans, expectations, strategy, working relationships, goals, and many more pieces of relevant information useful in coming to conclusions.

Mike did provide answers to the questions that have been raised by the Rosenthal report, and other baseball reporters such as Fletcher.  In effect he has provided an answer to the fans through the press, and I don't think he is expected to field questions from individual fans on this matter.

My point about public and private companies was made because the expectation and depth of information provided in each situation is different.  For private organizations like the Angels it is very limited, and fans (or the consumers) have little rights with regard to the disclosure of the details of running the organization.  I don't know how to make it more clear.