|
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NJ
|
Mike Vaccaro answers YOUR questions
In celebration of Mike Vaccaro's (of the NY Post) new book, "Emporers and Idiots..." (Doubleday; NYYF Interview; Amazon), Mike agreed to field some questions from the NYYF community. They weren't lollipop questions, so they're not lollipop answers. My thanks to Mike for taking the time to do this  .
If you aksed a question that isn't answered here, Mike said that this was batch 1... your question will probably be answered in the near future.
Here we go, and thanks to everyone for your participation!
Quote:
QUESTION FROM TIFOSO:
Great book, Mike My question: if you had to pick a team besides the Mets to be a fan of, which would it be and why?
A: Thanks for those kind words. You know, it really was a toss-up for me growing up on Long Island. I think I became a Mets fan mostly because that was the first game my dad took me to (even though he was a Yankees fan, if you can believe that). It’s funny: I tell my friends that I won’t make the same mistake, I’ll insist when I have kids that they be Yankees fans. They can choose whatever college they want, whatever profession they want. That’s their call. I’ll make them Yankees fans. You have a lot more fun that way.
QUESTION FROM KIWIWRITER:
Why are baseball writers trying to inflame the trash-talk wars between the Red Sox and the Yankees? The example being the spring training potshots from the Red Sox, and the Yankee refusal to stoop to that level. Can't baseball writers write articles without having to rely on ballplayers to provide inflammatory quotes? What happened to analyzing how the game is played?
A: It’s a fair question, Kiwi, but I’ll say this: baseball writers didn’t exactly have to prod the Red Sox into pouring their thoughts out on this subject. And the fact is, while this kind of ancillary subject matter may not appeal to pure baseball fans (nor should it), this really is the kind of stuff that makes the peripheral baseball fan care about the sport in general and this series specifically. One of the things I’ve discovered as I’ve made the rounds with this book is that the first thing a lot of fans who don’t have a specific rooting interest want to talk about is the chapter on all the fights that have marred this series. Now, to me, that’s just a byproduct, a complementary chapter, and really shouldn’t be the thing that drives this book, thus subject or this series. But like I said, those are the kind of things that make peripheral fans care. Should we always cater to those folks? No. And I can surely see where it can get tiresome to “real” baseball fans. Although I can also see the flip side of the issue, which would be the more people you can attract to the sport – and to the Sox-Yankees rivalry, by extension – the better both will be.
QUESTION FROM ARCHER1979
Do you ever try to differentiate when a player is just blowing off steam as opposed to when he really means what he says? In some sports, there's a mandatory cooling off period between when the game ends and when the interviews can begin. The comments right afterwards can be very raw and not truly indicative of what a player genuinely feels. Have you ever just chucked the quote away and waited for him to cool down?
A: Actually, in baseball there’s a cooling-off period, too, which is supposed to be 10 minutes but usually gets stretched to 12 or 15 minutes. That isn’t always enough time, either, if a player is genuinely ticked off, but the fact is it isn’t up to us to decipher what a player means and what his inner demons are coaxing him to saying at any given moment. There is also this: baseball players, as professional athletes, understand awfully well the rules of engagement with reporters. If an athlete’s so angry he doesn’t think he can contain himself, then he needs to keep himself in the trainer’s room, or one of the other off-limits areas until he cools down.
QUESTION FROM MOOSECALLINTHEBRONX:
Hi Mike. With all the controversies and players that have gone through the Bronx in the last ten years or so, how do you think future generations will look upon the Yankees? Will it be with the same aura that we look upon the DiMaggio's and Ruth's or will it be one of admiration but non-existent legacy?
A: I think so. Let’s face it, as crazy as it may have gotten the last 10 years in the Bronx, it doesn’t hold a candle to the circus that used to take over the clubhouse in the late ‘70s, with the Bronx Zoo Yankees of Reggie, Billy, Thurman, Goose, Nettles, etc. And I don’t have to tell you, whenever those 1977-78 Yankees come back to the Stadium, either for a reunion, or Old Timers Day or whatever, they get some of the biggest hands of anyone. I don’t think today’s Yankees travails compare or even require mention in the same sentence as some of the antics of those old-time characters.
QUESTION FROM XHIBIT:
Why don't you bother to use facts to write your "articles"?? Don't you realize that as a "journalist" there comes a responsibility and that your words hold greater weight?? Do you think the fact that there is no accountability for the NY media makes them irresponsible with what they write?
A: I guess I’d ask what exactly the difference is between the crimes you allege the New York media commit and the question you just asked, which is basically calling us a gang of irresponsible hacks without citing specific grievances. I can’t speak for every reporter writing every article for every paper, but I have to say I can’t think of one instance that would jibe with the accusations you’re making. Now, if you’re referring to columnists like myself who get paid to state their opinions in the paper, that’s a different issue, but I would still caution against calling us irresponsible with what we write. You may disagree with our opinions, but that’s the beauty of even HAVING an opinion: debating it, arguing it on the merits, trying to weigh one side against the other. I think it’s absolutely right that we understand our words hold a great weight, and that’s why most of us – I’d actually dare say all of us – go about our business as professionally as possible. Again, if you care to cite specific examples, I’d be delighted to argue the point further.
QUESTION FROM JIMMYCLARK:
I have a theory that the reason why George Steinbrenner is much more successful than the other New York owners (Dolans/Gulf-Western, Wilpon-Doubleday, Hess-Johnson, etc) is that he is the only one that is not from New York and is driven to succeed in this town to get noticed. The other owners act as if winning championships was their birthright and are not as driven. While certainly one can say baseball allows a big market team a better chance, please note 1) the Mets have won 1 championship in the last 35 years and 2) other sports have had big market teams dominating: the Lakers have won 8 championships in the last 25 years and even in the NFL the Boston/New England franchise has won 3 out of the last 4 Super Bowls and set a consecutive game win streak. Your comments?
A: I would agree with the assessment about Steinbrenner, who has never made any bones about the fact that it was always a dream of his to make it in the big town. I would add that it was another fueling aspect of his ambition to show his father that he could be a success separate and apart from the family shipping business, and he’s certainly showed that. As for the big market argument: if you cite the Lakers as an example of big market success in other sports, then you also have to remember the Knicks have gone without for 32 years, and not only under the reign of the Dolans.
QUESTION FROM SILVERDSL:
Have you ever developed friendships with any of the athletes that you write about? Does that make it hard to write an objective article? How do you think the internet has influenced what you do for a print publication? What is an average day for you like when you have a game to cover? Have you ever been confronted by a player or team representative who didn't like something you wrote? How do you handle that?
A: Lots of good questions, Deborah, I hope I can give you satisfactory answers. Sad to say, it’s exactly because objectivity is the key to professional newspaper reporting that all but makes impossible the notion of developing friendships with sources or subjects. To me, it would be phony and fraudulent of me – or any writer – to befriend a player, for instance, if both you and the player know a time may come when you’ll have to call for that player’s benching, trade, or release. Same with managers. You can reserve soft spots in your heart for certain guys, but full-blown friendships are mostly out of the question. The internet, to me, has been the most influential change in newspapers the last 30 years. The immediacy of life now is impossible to gauge, but the fact is it has forced newspapers to give their readers more than just the score, more than just the basic facts. It’s forced reporters to report, and columnists to be a lot more incisive with their commentaries, and so if it’s forced us to work harder I think it definitely qualifies as an instrument of good. On an average day, which I guess qualifies as a 7:10 start, a baseball writer will arrive at the ballpark between 2:30 and 3 o’clock, in time to get to the clubhouse when it opens 3 ½ hours before first pitch. In the clubhouse you’ll check with sources, interview players, spend time with the manager, all so you can write your “early” story, which needs to be in before the first pitch, for the earliest editions of the paper. For the next edition, you’ll need to file a “running” story, which is basically the play-by-play of what happens, which needs to be filed as soon as the game ends so it can be included in suburban editions of the paper. Then you have to write a third story, or the “write-thru,” which generally needs to be in by midnight so you can reach the final editions of the paper. When all’s said and done you’ll leave the ballpark around 12:30 or so. I have been confronted by disgruntled folks, and it’s definitely an uncomfortable situation, or can be, if you lose your professionalism. To me, there is a very basic rule of thumb: if you rip someone, you’d better show your face the next day and let that player/coach/GM have a chance to take a shot (verbally that is) right back at you. It’s only fair. In almost every case, if you give your target a chance to get back at you, the whole situation will blow over quickly. As it should.
QUESTION FROM PETERFNY:
Mike, por favor: I work with a couple of Red Sox fans, and the thing that amazes me the most about how the fans and the players themselves have been pretty much on the same wavelength as far as all the anti-Yankee, anti-Arod trash talking. If an alien landed on Earth right now not knowing who won the ALCS, the way the Sox are carrying on, you would think they LOST. That in mind, have you ever seen such a wierd example of "sore winners" before in your life, or is that (as I suggested) a case of a group that is so used to losing that they don't know how to act when they win??? (PS - Is Mushnick as joyless and devoid of a sense of humor in real life as he comes off in the paper?)
A: You know what, Pete? I think you may be on to something. I know I was a little taken aback at the celebration day at Fenway, when what should have been a complete and unfettered tribute to the Sox became littered with ugly chants about the Yankees. I thought that was a little weird, I must say. For that element of Sox fan, I think that’s exactly what it is, that they were so used to the unhappy ending they didn’t know how to reach to the good one. That said? Most Sox fans I know, and I think the majority of them in general, really have celebrated their title the way you’d hope they would. Like with anything else, the ones who do it with class rarely receive any credit or attention, which is just the way it is. (And as for Mushnick: he’s one of the funniest guys I’ve met in this business. He just takes the issues he cares about seriously, and there are a lot of readers who hang on every word).
QUESTION FROM NONECKWILLIAMS:
Mike, has the Yankee FO shown any concern about the age of the outfield and the lack of depth there? They made no moves to improve the OF in the offseason and indeed are arguably in a worse position there than they were in a year ago as Bernie is a year older and Lofton is not there as insurance.
A: I think it’s definitely gotten the Yankees’ attention that the outfield is almost as brittle as the pitching staff. At some point, I think Bernie Williams, great as he is, will be a walking advertisement to GMs across the game just how dangerous seven-year contracts can be (although the Yankees had to pay to keep Bernie and did the right thing when they did). I think Sheffield, hard as he plays, is always a candidate to stretch or strain or sprain something, and the thing that worries any Yankees fan is the idea of Bubba Crosby – a nice extra piece, but not anyone’s idea of an everyday player – having to play for a long stretch of time. So yes, I think you will see the first move of this season being a move to beef up the outfield (although if more pitchers keep dropping like flies, that may change), because the front office is as worried about the outfield as you are. Probably more (they won’t fire you … haha)
QUESTION FROM SORIAMBI:
Mike, How long do you feel that the Yankees can win with what seems to be a philosophy of "win now," where they pay out big money to veterans while trading away prospects to acquire other players? Can they stay at the high level that they've played at since around 1994 (and get back to the ultra-high level that they played at from 1996-2000, and to an extent, in 2001 and 2003 when they made the World Series) by signing free agents and trading what prospects they have for players they need, or do you think that more of their stars need to come up through their system and why?
A: I think the Yankees are in the middle of a quandary which their own success has created for themselves. The fact is, they won for the first time in 1996 thanks to the fruition of a wonderful time of player development (Jeter, Rivera, etc), smart trades (O’Neill) and wise free agent pickups (Boggs, Key). They managed to win the three in a row using essentially the same formula, with role players like Sojo and Chad Curtis being key. But I think the Yankees, like so many New York teams, are terrified about what will happen if they don’t try and spend to have the best “now” team on the field. As long as that happens, I believe they’ll remain trapped by their success and will have to keep throwing good money after bad, especially because the farm system is now so strapped for talent that they can’t induce favorable trades for anyone of any substance unless they get another team or two involved. And complicated trades are hard to pull off, especially during gun-to-your head deadline situations.
QUESTION FROM JDPNYY:
Mike, Which period of the long Yankee / Red Sox rivalry is more intense - the period during the late 70's or the present period starting in the late 90's? I'd like to know your feelings on the intensity of the rivalry from the players point of view and from the fans point of view.
A: I think the present period, only because the information available makes it such that Yankees fans can follow the Red Sox as closely as they want to, and Red Sox fans can do the same with the Yankees. There are no mysteries anymore between these teams. I will say that I think the current animosity between the teams probably extends back to the ‘70s, which is when the rooting and cheering became awfully personal, especially revolving around the Fisk-Munson battles. The players are more wrapped up in the rivalry than you might think, and more than they’re usually willing to admit for public consumption. They know they’re in the middle of something different – and special – when they land in the middle of the rivalry. And guys like Jeter – they know the history part of it chapter and verse. Believe me.
QUESTION FROM DAVE VISBECK:
Do you think that the 2004 victory by the Red Sox will make the rivalry less intense because Red Sox fans don't have anything to be upset about anymore? Do you think that because we now don't have to be depressed over the 86 year long waiting period we’ve all gone through... where, as Red Sox fans, we just wait for the yearly inevitability of something bad that’s going to be happening to us… that we can just let go of our incredible rivalry with the Yankees and just smile and be happy? Or do you think we are now hungry for more? The wine is sweet once again.
A:I truly believe the rivalry will be kicked up another notch because of the fact the Red Sox won in 2004, I really do. Now, it can be all about the baseball, which is so terrific when these two teams get together now, they bring the best out of each other and it’s as close as reality TV can become to must-see TV. I really do believe that. I think most Red Sox fans will tell you they’re glad to be rid of the angst and are grateful that they’ll never have to hear the word ‘curse’ ever again.
|
I'd like to urge everyone who has even a minor interest in Yankees (or Red Sox) history to pick up Emporers and Idiots... it's a fascinating book that chronicles the rivalry from the very beginning. It's different than all the other "rivalry" books because it focuses on the historical aspects, only using current events to tie everything together. It's extremely objective, and most of all is just a good read.
Thanks again to everyone who asked questions and to Mike for taking the time to answer them!
-jim |
04-27-05, 01:21 PM
Linear Mode
