I was as peeved as anybody about the way the Yankee game ended Saturday night -- clearly Mark Teixeira was safe, although the umpire didn't see it that way. However, CC Sabathia also needs to be the CC of old; your ace can't be giving up five runs in a start.
Anyhow, I just wanted to weigh in on the hissy fit Joel Sherman had in the post-game presser. He asked Girardi if CC was hurt, acknowledging that this question may have been asked before. Girardi snapped back about it being the third time he was asked that question. Sherman sassed that it was "part of the game."
Then Girardi sez, "I know, but I was asked three times," to which Sherman says that it's "still part of the game." To which Girardi says,"I’m not lying. One time is sufficient." Then Sherman goes about how Girardi "gets the big money" as Yankee manager, and such questioning is all part of the game. (Really? Reporters needing to ask the same questions multiple times is part of the game? And having to put up with an insufferable clown is part of the game, too? Who knew?)
You can listen to the exchange here, starting at about 3:30 into it.
Reportedly, the two continued the conversation in Girardi's office, and supposedly nearly came to blows, with security needing to intervene.
Here's the thing -- I pretty much agree with Sherman's take on the Yankees in the Sunday papers here and here. But I also think that Sherman was completely out of line with the Yankee manager. You didn't hear the answer to the first two times Girardi answered the question? Tough. Listen to your tape recorder, ask one of your colleagues, or watch the YES clip later. What gives you the right to monopolize the press conference and make it about yourself, because Girardi had the nerve to point out that he had already answered the question?
Besides, I've heard Sherman do this over and over, either asking the interview subject a question that has been asked multiple times, or asking the person three or four variations on the same question. It's grandstanding, based on his position as a sports columnist. A rookie writer who asked Girardi to answer a question he had already answered would be lambasted by his colleagues for not paying attention. But since Sherman is a baseball columnist for the New York Post, he gets away with it.
As for this "part of the game" stuff, Sherman makes a lot of money, too. Does that give him the right to make the presser all about him? How does Sherman acting like Veruca Salt in "Willy Wonka" help the readers -- you know, the people he is ostensibly writing his columns for? What did they learn from that exchange? It seemed like Sherman was picking a fight and claiming the high ground, simply so that people could say how unhinged Girardi is over losing, a la Bobby Valentine losing his mind in Boston.
Perhaps Girardi should have gritted his teeth and not said anything snappy in response. But I don't think it would have made any difference. Sherman was like a dog with a bone, and he wasn't going to let go, no matter what. That's part of Sherman's game!
What do you think? Tell us about it!
2 comments:
Anybody else have flashbacks to Jim Gray pushing his luck with Pete Rose? Once Gray got an answer, whether he liked it or not, he should have moved on.
Sherman should have sucked it up and admitted to his colleagues that he didn't get the answer he wanted. It's no different than a college student asking a classmate to see his notes. It's incompetence, but it's not cheating.
Joel Sherman must be watching tapes of Larry Brooks needling John Tortorella. I don't recall where it says in the journalist text books that the journalist is supposed to be the story.
If you disgree, then write about it in your column. Perhaps idiot writers like this would like us to come to the newsroom and pester them about stupid things they write.
Post a Comment