PDA

View Full Version : Thom Brennaman to join Dad!



nippertw
10-04-2006, 12:59 PM
News @ 700WLW

SultanOfSwing
10-04-2006, 01:01 PM
Is this for real? If so great!!! :)

Hubba
10-04-2006, 01:02 PM
happy first post:thumbup:

Joseph
10-04-2006, 01:03 PM
Tis being reported now as fact and not speculation. A 4 year contract to do both TV and radio, around 90 games next season.

SultanOfSwing
10-04-2006, 01:05 PM
Catellini just made his big splash! To do this now makes me look forward to the offseason and BC proactive wallet. :) :)

smith288
10-04-2006, 01:08 PM
Am i the only one not overly joyed by this?

Sounds like nepotism to worst degree. Sure Thom is a fine announcer but I really want some consistency in the booth and with Thom's other commitments as well as dear old grumpy dad along side. I would be fine is Thom REPLACED Marty and they added a former Red who knows the game (Paul O'Neil for example).

Color me unimpressed.

traderumor
10-04-2006, 01:15 PM
Am i the only one not overly joyed by this?

Sounds like nepotism to worst degree. Sure Thom is a fine announcer but I really want some consistency in the booth and with Thom's other commitments as well as dear old grumpy dad along side. I would be fine is Thom REPLACED Marty and they added a former Red who knows the game (Paul O'Neil for example).

Color me unimpressed.Nepotism is giving someone a job or business ONLY because they are family or friend. Thom is highly qualified for this job, so bending over backwards to get him seems more like working with someone that is highly regarded and has options. Just an aside, hiring "former Reds" because they are former Reds is nepotism as well.

OldXOhio
10-04-2006, 01:17 PM
Yeah, I can show you a clear case of nepotism at my alma mater. I don't feel that way at all about the hiring of a quality announcer in Thom. Thumbs up for me.

Chip R
10-04-2006, 01:20 PM
Am i the only one not overly joyed by this?

Sounds like nepotism to worst degree. Sure Thom is a fine announcer but I really want some consistency in the booth and with Thom's other commitments as well as dear old grumpy dad along side. I would be fine is Thom REPLACED Marty and they added a former Red who knows the game (Paul O'Neil for example).

Color me unimpressed.


I've always liked Thom. It's not nepotism if he's actually very qualified for the gig. I wouldn't be against Thom and Paul doing that.

The problem I have is it's only 90 games a year. I don't understand why he's only doing 90 games. Fox doesn't start the game of the week till June. Even if you let him off for Friday, Saturday and Sunday games every week from June through Sept, that's still 114 games he can do. Say what you want about Steve but he was there for 162 games.

registerthis
10-04-2006, 01:20 PM
Yeah, I can show you a clear case of nepotism at my alma mater. I don't feel that way at all about the hiring of a quality announcer in Thom.

Nor do I--I have to applaud this move. Claiming nepotism here is simply looking for something to bark about, IMO.

Reds4Life
10-04-2006, 01:22 PM
90 games? That's 55% of the season, why bother to come at all if you are only going to be here about half the time?

RANDY IN INDY
10-04-2006, 01:32 PM
The Reds are setting themselves up to replace Marty in a few years. I like that they have hired Thom. Good announcer.

BuckWoody
10-04-2006, 01:33 PM
90 games? That's 55% of the season, why bother to come at all if you are only going to be here about half the time?
The WLW site says that there will be a 4:00 PM press conference. Hopefully we'll hear the rest of the story then because there has to be more to it.

redsfandoug
10-04-2006, 01:35 PM
Fox is going to do games every Saturday from start to finish next year.

smith288
10-04-2006, 01:40 PM
Nepotism is giving someone a job or business ONLY because they are family or friend. Thom is highly qualified for this job, so bending over backwards to get him seems more like working with someone that is highly regarded and has options. Just an aside, hiring "former Reds" because they are former Reds is nepotism as well.
I never said Thom isnt qualified. Im simply saying Thom should replace Marty when Marty is done. Two pencil jocks weilding the announcing is sometimes like listening to two Hollywood actors trying to report on the policies of the govt. Somebody with some relative experience playing the sport makes it more worthwhile.

Hopefully they add someone else while Marty takes his 3 innings off doing whatever the heck he does. (what DOES he do anyways? Is PBP that strenuous?)

Chip R
10-04-2006, 01:51 PM
Fox is going to do games every Saturday from start to finish next year.

That would probably take care of the remaining 24 games then.

cincy jacket
10-04-2006, 01:55 PM
Fox is going to do games every Saturday from start to finish next year.

I had heard that too somewhere but I forget where now. Maybe this means that there might be a few more games of the week played here now. Either way I think this is a great hire. Any time you can get someone in the top 5 of his profession to come work for you it has to be a plus. What are the odds that this works out the same way the Griffey thing did? No way right?;)

Roy Tucker
10-04-2006, 01:57 PM
I think its a good move. Thom is a great announcer.

I would think the liklihood is high that he'd replace his dad a few years down the line. Another good move.

So who is going to fill in for all the radio games Thom misses?

flyer85
10-04-2006, 01:57 PM
As long as George and Grumpy are still around it just isn't that big of a deal.

guttle11
10-04-2006, 02:04 PM
As long as George and Grumpy are still around it just isn't that big of a deal.

Sure it is. Now we get the suspense of hoping that day's game is a Thom game. When it is, hooray! When it's not, Booooo!

Plus we will get to watch him take the Jim Day Terrible Test or whatever they call it these days. Who doesn't want to see that?

REDREAD
10-04-2006, 02:05 PM
The problem I have is it's only 90 games a year. .

On the plus side though, the radio broadcast might be more interesting with someone else doing the other 72 games.

While Thom is a good announcer, I question if being with his dad will cause him to be overly passive as Steve was last year. I'd much rather have someone willing to have a DISCUSSION than just pandering to Marty and letting Marty say whatever he wants.

Thom isn't going to steer Marty back on track when he starts talking about BarBQ, family friends, golf, emails about cat names, etc. Maybe the guy they get for the other 72 games will keep the focus on the game.

For example, I would've been a fan for life of Steve if during that "name Marty's cat" email deluge, if Steve said something like, "Well, for those interested in the game.. Majewski misses low with a breaking pitch, 2-0".
Instead, Steve made it worse by joining in and reading the stupid email jokes, acting impressed about an email from Sweden, etc.

redsmetz
10-04-2006, 02:08 PM
Here's a link to an interview that a high school buddy of mine did with Marty and Thom in Athens, Ohio. It always struck me as an interesting show.

http://www.woub.org/intouch/Marty_Brennaman/marty_brennaman.html

REDREAD
10-04-2006, 02:09 PM
Hopefully they add someone else while Marty takes his 3 innings off doing whatever the heck he does. (what DOES he do anyways? Is PBP that strenuous?)

Maybe Marty reads his email during his break or reads Golf Digest so he has plenty of material for the rest of the game? :laugh:

I agree with you that part of the problem last year was just having two play-by-play announcers who never played the game. Thom is a step up from Steve, but the father-son chemistry is a potential negative, as I see a lot of off topic stuff coming up.

I think the Reds are looking into adding another guy. Hopefully it's a former player (doesn't have to be a former Red)

Ltlabner
10-04-2006, 02:19 PM
I agree with you that part of the problem last year was just having two play-by-play announcers who never played the game.

Playing the cynic for a minute, how come people who use the "I played the game line" when it comes to understanding the game are mocked (ie. Tracey Jones) but for the radio booth it's critical to have an ex-player who "understands" the game?

Always Red
10-04-2006, 02:19 PM
I like it: Thom Brennaman is excellent, and having him do Reds games, even if only during the week, is definitely a feather in this teams cap.

I'd bet this will keep Marty much more interested next year!

Seriously, I think this addition will improve Marty as well. He's got to be excited by this.

TeamBoone
10-04-2006, 02:28 PM
For example, I would've been a fan for life of Steve if during that "name Marty's cat" email deluge, if Steve said something like, "Well, for those interested in the game.. Majewski misses low with a breaking pitch, 2-0".

Instead, Steve made it worse by joining in and reading the stupid email jokes, acting impressed about an email from Sweden, etc.

Steve couldn't say that and you know it! It was, however, implied as Steve often cut in with gameplay... he just didn't make a big deal about it... he just did it.

And, yes, he joined in... but not to the point that he didn't also call the game.

I don't even like the conversations with the beat reporters in the 2nd inning as the game is COMPLETELY ignored during these segments, unless something really important happens. Same with the trivia questions (which I don't mind when they're about baseball)... they could, however, pose them during the visiting team's at bats rather than the Reds, which they don't do.

big boy
10-04-2006, 02:30 PM
I would think the liklihood is high that he'd replace his dad a few years down the line. Another good move.

TB will likely still be doing national games (football or baseball). If this is true, then there would be no full-time Reds broadcaster on the radio.

minus5
10-04-2006, 02:39 PM
http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061004/SPT04/310040017/-1/CINCI

From the Enquirer.

Brennamans reunited
ENQUIRER STAFF REPORTS
Father and son have been reunited in the Cincinnati Reds booth.

Reds chief executive officer Bob Castellini announced on Wednesday that the organization has hired Thom Brennaman for Reds radio and television broadcasts.

Brennaman signed a four-year contract through the 2010 season.


Thom Brennaman will work alongside his father, Marty Brennaman, for selected radio broadcasts on 700 WLW, and also will sit in the booth for Reds TV broadcasts on FSN Ohio.

Next season, the club’s television broadcast schedule will increase from 100 to 145 games.

Thom Brennaman, 43, is expected to broadcast approximately 90 games for the Reds while continuing to serve as one of Major League Baseball’s lead announcers on the Saturday Game of the Week for national television rightsholder FOX.

The Reds will hire another broadcaster to work Reds games in his absence.

“Adding Thom Brennaman to our broadcast booths shows our commitment to excellence is directed not only on the field but off it,” said Castellini in a statement.

“Like his father, Thom is one of the best announcers in baseball. Our fans deserve nothing but the best.”

“This is a dream fulfilled for me,” said Marty Brennaman, who joined the Reds radio team in 1974 and just completed his 42nd season as a sports broadcaster.

Thom Brennaman will continue his role with FOX as a play-by-play announcer for MLB’s post-season telecasts.

He just completed his ninth season as broadcaster for Arizona Diamondbacks radio and TV broadcasts.

Brennaman joined the Diamondbacks after six seasons with the Chicago Cubs working for both WGN radio and TV.

He was hired by the Cubs after two years in Cincinnati broadcasting Reds TV games alongside Hall of Fame catcher Johnny Bench.

The Brennamans worked together during a Baseball Network televised game in the 1990s.

During his previous time in Cincinnati, Thom Brennaman also worked as a weekend sports anchor on WLWT-TV 5 and as the morning drive sports anchor on 700 WLW Radio.

One of the country’s most versatile announcers, Thom Brennaman is part of the NFL and college football broadcast teams for FOX and in January will be in the booth for the worldwide telecast of the college football BCS championship game.

He has been the play-by-play voice for that network on the last six Cotton Bowl telecasts and for two years broadcast Atlantic Coast Conference college basketball games for Fox Sports Net.

He also has handled University of Cincinnati men’s basketball broadcast duties and worked for CBS during the NCAA men’s basketball tournament.

Reds chief operating officer John Allen said, “We appreciate the Diamondbacks allowing us the opportunity to interview Thom. They were very helpful throughout this process.”

Brennaman is a graduate of Anderson High School and Ohio University. He and his wife, Polly, have two children, Ella Mae and Luke.

joeredleg
10-04-2006, 02:45 PM
Didn't marty say he fought for steve stewart to keep his job.

dabvu2498
10-04-2006, 02:51 PM
Thought: If the ownership of this franchise is willing to spend drastically more to improve the broadcast team, they'd better be willing to spend drastically more to improve the baseball team.

Unassisted
10-04-2006, 02:57 PM
Thought: If the ownership of this franchise is willing to spend drastically more to improve the broadcast team, they'd better be willing to spend drastically more to improve the baseball team.The big flaw in that thinking is that the combined wages and salary of everyone who works on both the radio and TV broadcasts of Reds games is less than Eric Milton will be paid next year. The total's probably closer to what Jason LaRue will make than what Milton will make.

goreds2
10-04-2006, 02:57 PM
:party:

dabvu2498
10-04-2006, 02:59 PM
The big flaw in that thinking is that the combined wages and salary of everyone who works on both the radio and TV broadcasts of Reds games is less than Eric Milton will be paid next year. The total's probably closer to what Jason LaRue will make than what Milton will make.

Still, I would rather see that money "invested" in the product on the field ahead of the product on the airwaves.

Roy Tucker
10-04-2006, 03:03 PM
So the Reds will hire another radio announcer to fill in when Thom is doing his national gig. Maybe that's where Brantley or Mercker will get some OJT.

I wonder how many games Thom did a year for the D'backs while also doing the Fox thing?

Roy Tucker
10-04-2006, 03:05 PM
Boy, I would love to travel the country to baseball games and work with my son.

That would be gi-normously cool (as my daughter says).

TeamSelig
10-04-2006, 03:23 PM
hopefully he's not as grumpy and negative as his dad

Chip R
10-04-2006, 03:25 PM
While Thom is a good announcer, I question if being with his dad will cause him to be overly passive as Steve was last year. I'd much rather have someone willing to have a DISCUSSION than just pandering to Marty and letting Marty say whatever he wants.

Thom isn't going to steer Marty back on track when he starts talking about BarBQ, family friends, golf, emails about cat names, etc. Maybe the guy they get for the other 72 games will keep the focus on the game.

For example, I would've been a fan for life of Steve if during that "name Marty's cat" email deluge, if Steve said something like, "Well, for those interested in the game.. Majewski misses low with a breaking pitch, 2-0".
Instead, Steve made it worse by joining in and reading the stupid email jokes, acting impressed about an email from Sweden, etc.

The popular opinion is that Steve was intimidated by Marty and went along to get along. Steve wasn't exactly a rookie but it was his first full-time gig in the majors. A guy's probably going to do pretty much whatever it takes to keep the job. Thom's a proven broadcaster. If this gig goes south he could probably have most any broadcasting gig he wants including working for Fox. I don't know the dynamics of the Thom-Marty relationship but it's safe to say that they get along rather well. If Marty started rambling on about something and Thom said something like, "That's great, Dad, but let's get back to the game" you think Marty would go to John Allen or Bob and demand Thom be fired? A lot of guys are intimidated by their fathers and a lot think their dads are full of crap. We'll just have to see how this is played out.

cumberlandreds
10-04-2006, 03:57 PM
Didn't marty say he fought for steve stewart to keep his job.

I have been wondering if Steve Stewart is feeling a stab in the back today?

Unassisted
10-04-2006, 04:02 PM
Didn't marty say he fought for steve stewart to keep his job.It might be the truth.

It's conceivable that the Reds FO kept enough of a lid on this hiring discussion to keep Marty from finding out about it during the season. Maybe Marty told them to keep him out of the loop on this discussion when he had the first inkling that this was a possibility? That would give him plausible deniability so that he wouldn't appear to have blood on his hands after word got out. My guess is that Marty would have liked to strangle Lance for letting this cat get out of the bag before the end of the season, thus making his last few weeks on the air with Steve uncomfortable.

smith288
10-04-2006, 04:08 PM
Because an athlete can be a good analyst and not say stupid condescending things like "well, i have played the game so you don't know what you are talking about".

Mike Golic is able to do it quite well actually.

Benny-Distefano
10-04-2006, 04:13 PM
Marty and Tony Perez would be a funny combo in the booth.

Tony: khg;kulkj'lkj[oih

Marty: What?

Tony: lhkg8hb iuhuigbhjkbiu

Marty: What?

Chip R
10-04-2006, 04:19 PM
It might be the truth.

It's conceivable that the Reds FO kept enough of a lid on this hiring discussion to keep Marty from finding out about it during the season. Maybe Marty told them to keep him out of the loop on this discussion when he had the first inkling that this was a possibility? That would give him plausible deniability so that he wouldn't appear to have blood on his hands after word got out. My guess is that Marty would have liked to strangle Lance for letting this cat get out of the bag before the end of the season, thus making his last few weeks on the air with Steve uncomfortable.

Absolutely. Marty may advise but I'm sure he doesn't get final say on who is hired and fired in the booth. If Bob didn't want Steve on the radio, Marty can only fight so much for him. If it's a fait accompli, why not lobby Thom to come home? That isn't stabbing Steve in the back. It's making the best of a bad situation. The discussions about Thom coming back only started after it was announced Steve wouldn't be back.

goreds2
10-04-2006, 04:28 PM
I wonder how many games Thom did a year for the D'backs while also doing the Fox thing?

From the MLB.COM Arizona team site:

One of the most versatile announcers in the industry, Thom Brennaman is in his ninth season with the Diamondbacks. Thom will handle the play-by-play duties on the Diamondbacks Television Network and Fox Sports Net, and will make periodic appearances in the play-by-play chair on KTAR Radio.

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/team/broadcasters.jsp?c_id=ari

Matt700wlw
10-04-2006, 04:40 PM
Hopefully they add someone else while Marty takes his 3 innings off doing whatever the heck he does. (what DOES he do anyways? Is PBP that strenuous?)


Why the uproar about Marty's 3 innings off now when it's been that way forever?

Always Red
10-04-2006, 04:44 PM
A lot of guys are intimidated by their fathers and a lot think their dads are full of crap. We'll just have to see how this is played out.

LOL- I thought my dad was full of crap- when I was 16, until I was about 22.

Much later, after I had my own children, I apologized to him for what a punk I was at that age and he laughed and said he was also a teenager once, and for that matter, to just wait, it would happen to me, too. And it's happening right now, my kids think I'm full of crap; ahh..the great circle of life...:D

Chip R
10-04-2006, 05:05 PM
LOL- I thought my dad was full of crap- when I was 16, until I was about 22.

Much later, after I had my own children, I apologized to him for what a punk I was at that age and he laughed and said he was also a teenager once, and for that matter, to just wait, it would happen to me, too. And it's happening right now, my kids think I'm full of crap; ahh..the great circle of life...:D

I was just the opposite. :D

But the thing is, Thom is 40 some years old. He's not a teen or a college kid under Daddy's thumb. He's got a family of his own and is his own man. Just a hunch but I don't think Thom is intimidated by Marty. I didn't listen to enough Cardinals games to know how Jack and Joe Buck interacted with each other. Jack seemed like a less overbearing person than Marty and I don't know if they actually were play by play guy and analyst. I get the feeling that a lot of media folks around here are intimidated by Marty. That a good word from Marty could make them and a bad word could have them doing a call in show from Butte, Montana. Thom doesn't have to worry about that.

cincy jacket
10-04-2006, 05:11 PM
Is it possible that Marty and Thom won't even be doing games together? I thought Marty was going to be taking more time off this year. Maybe Thom will do strictly TV and then when Marty takes his few weeks off Thom slides over and does radio? I doubt the Reds pass up the publicity that having father and soon doing games together, especially ones of the caliber of these two, would get though.

Matt700wlw
10-04-2006, 05:30 PM
They'll do games together, and Marty said if they want Thom to do 6 and Marty to be 3, for exmaple....he has no problem with that.

He said he could think of nothing better than to pass the torch to his own son.

Matt700wlw
10-04-2006, 05:30 PM
Is it possible that Marty and Thom won't even be doing games together? I thought Marty was going to be taking more time off this year. Maybe Thom will do strictly TV and then when Marty takes his few weeks off Thom slides over and does radio? I doubt the Reds pass up the publicity that having father and soon doing games together, especially ones of the caliber of these two, would get though.

Something like this could change Marty's mind. This is a dream come true for him and Thom.

ryanparkersongs
10-04-2006, 05:34 PM
I think this is a great hire and am looking forward to hearing Thom call games on radio and TV as his voice and mannerisms are similar to Marty. According to John Allen in the press conference, John Allen said that Thom will do a total of 90 games, 45 on the radio and 45 on TV. For those of us who listen to the radio games more often than not, Thom will only be on the air about 30% of the time. John Allen said the next guy they hire will do approximately 120 games on radio...so it sounds like the next guy they hire (former player) will be the one we get to hear more often than not on the radio. I would predict the radio games will end up being some combination of Marty and the new guy, Marty and Joe, Thom and the new guy, and/or Thom and Joe. I doubt we will hear Marty and Thom together on the air very much at all if at all. In any case, I look forward to it. Hopefully the team can improve as much as the broadcast booth!

REDREAD
10-04-2006, 05:47 PM
Playing the cynic for a minute, how come people who use the "I played the game line" when it comes to understanding the game are mocked (ie. Tracey Jones) but for the radio booth it's critical to have an ex-player who "understands" the game?

IMO, the quality of the Reds broadcast deteriorated when Joe left. Not because Joe was great, but because Steve was very mediocre. Joe added some positive emotion to the broadcast, sometimes kept Marty on track, and added some genuine color.

Just having two guys telling you what you'd be seeing on TV (when they actually stay on topic) just isn't as fun of a listen. Steve was very detached and had phoney emotion. Marty gets more bitter and off topic every year, unless something in the game interests him. For example, that extra inning game that went until 3 am. Marty enjoyed that because he thought it might be a game long remembered or be of historical significance, or at bare mimimum it gives him another story ("I remember that 16 inning game in SD when I did all the extra innings myself").. But most of the time, Marty is bored.

Like others have mentioned, with Thom, I fear the "way to tell them, Dad" act. I'm glad he's only going to do 1/2 the games. I'm guessing the third broadcaster will do the other 1/2. I pray the third guy brings a little more dimension to the game than blandly describing the action.

smith288
10-04-2006, 05:52 PM
Why the uproar about Marty's 3 innings off now when it's been that way forever?
Its always annoyed me. I don't sense any "uproar". Just a general grumbling from myself. How hard is it to sit for 3 hours talking about a great game? Is he really that put out by it that he has to take off innings?

Matt700wlw
10-04-2006, 05:55 PM
Its always annoyed me. I don't sense any "uproar". Just a general grumbling from myself. How hard is it to sit for 3 hours talking about a great game? Is he really that put out by it that he has to take off innings?

"uproar" was probably the wrong word.

Was it the format used before Marty came here?

Talking on the radio isn't quite the same as talking to a friend while watching a game...

REDREAD
10-04-2006, 05:56 PM
Steve couldn't say that and you know it! It was, however, implied as Steve often cut in with gameplay... he just didn't make a big deal about it... he just did it.

Actually, early on, Steve did call Marty out sometimes. Like when Marty claimed that the majority of Dunn's HR were solo shots. Steve called him on it. Marty got all pissy and demanded proof, and Steve delivered the stats. Marty tried to talk his way out of it without admitting he was wrong by basically saying that Dunn still doesn't deliver enough or some other nonsense.

I got a feeling Steve was put in his place by Marty. I have a fear that Thom will also be submissive.

I don't necessarily want someone like Tracy Jones that will make the game into a constant Jerry Springer fight, but it would be nice to have someone with enough guts to correct Marty when he says things that are blatantly wrong. Marty gets away with making up things all the time, and people believe him.






And, yes, he joined in... but not to the point that he didn't also call the game. .

During the cat name email thing, the Reds were in danger of losing the lead. Runners were on base. It was a tense moment. I want pitch by pitch updates when the game is tense. I don't want to hear lame offtopic jokes when the game is on the line. They missed several pitches, and it was hard to follow what was going on because they kept reading emails the entire inning.








I don't even like the conversations with the beat reporters in the 2nd inning as the game is COMPLETELY ignored during these segments, unless something really important happens. Same with the trivia questions (which I don't mind when they're about baseball)... they could, however, pose them during the visiting team's at bats rather than the Reds, which they don't do.

The trivia question just has to go. It's gotten beyond annoying. I even sometimes change the station temporarily when they start talking about it, because I know it's going to last awhile. Just read the stupid question and move on. I could care less about all the drama they create in selecting their answers and who got the question right yesterday. And you're right, to top it off, the question usually has nothing to do with baseball.

Matt700wlw
10-04-2006, 05:59 PM
The trivia question are sponsored....

Using email gets John Burns of Cincinnati Bell Technology Solutions a plug as well.....and I'm sure it's paid for. There's no freebies...

It's the nature of the business.

REDREAD
10-04-2006, 06:00 PM
If Marty started rambling on about something and Thom said something like, "That's great, Dad, but let's get back to the game"


If Thom does that consistently, he will gain my respect. I will give him a chance, but I'm betting he was raised to let Dad say his piece. Even as adults, that's a hard behavior pattern to break out of.

REDREAD
10-04-2006, 06:02 PM
It might be the truth.

It's conceivable that the Reds FO kept enough of a lid on this hiring discussion to keep Marty from finding out about it during the season.

I find it hard to believe that Marty didn't find out everything he could about his potential replacement. Surely he knew they were planning on trying to get his son. Marty lied, plain and simple.

It was fairly obvious that Marty didn't like Steve all along. He merely tolerated Steve.

Matt700wlw
10-04-2006, 06:07 PM
I find it hard to believe that Marty didn't find out everything he could about his potential replacement. Surely he knew they were planning on trying to get his son. Marty lied, plain and simple.



Marty can't go over managements head and say "Thom's getting the job" before management gives the ok. Even if he knew, he has to keep it hush hush.

It was all speculation in the beginning (thank to us media types :)) and Marty has said for years he didn't see it happening because of the money...he stood by that, and I honestly think he is surprised it got done.

Castellini's a different animal. He made it happen.



It was fairly obvious that Marty didn't like Steve all along. He merely tolerated Steve.

I didn't know it was Marty who didn't renew his contract...I thought his new bosses were in charge of that...

REDREAD
10-04-2006, 06:07 PM
The trivia question are sponsored....

.

Sure, but does the sponsor buy 20 minutes of game time to have Marty and Steve pretend that it's the greatest thing since sliced bread?

Back when it was the "scoreboard stumper", they read the question and later the answer with no fanfare or drama. It was a lot better. Also,the quesitons were all baseball related. No space trivia in Houston, gangsta in Chicago, etc.

Matt700wlw
10-04-2006, 06:08 PM
Sure, but does the sponsor buy 20 minutes of game time to have Marty and Steve pretend that it's the greatest thing since sliced bread?

Back when it was the "scoreboard stumper", they read the question and later the answer with no fanfare or drama. It was a lot better. Also,the quesitons were all baseball related. No space trivia in Houston, gangsta in Chicago, etc.

I don't know the details...I just know it's not going anywhere...

REDREAD
10-04-2006, 06:09 PM
Is it possible that Marty and Thom won't even be doing games together? .

They'll milk the father-son thing just like they did with all the players.. Pete Rose Jr, Stephen Larkin (brother), etc.

Matt700wlw
10-04-2006, 06:10 PM
They'll milk the father-son thing just like they did with all the players.. Pete Rose Jr, Stephen Larkin (brother), etc.

Why do you hate this so much?

I'm just curious...

REDREAD
10-04-2006, 06:11 PM
I didn't know it was Marty who didn't renew his contract...I thought his new bosses were in charge of that...

Sorry I was not clear. I meant that Marty did not "fight for Steve" as he claimed. Particularly if he knew Thom was a possible candidate. Also, I'm sure Marty lied (or deceptively worded) his statement that he knew nothing about the Reds pursuing Thom. Yes, I know Marty isn't the one that makes the final hiring decision.

REDREAD
10-04-2006, 06:12 PM
I don't know the details...I just know it's not going anywhere...

I wouldn't mind it as much if they just read the question and moved on. I understand they have to sell sponsor time.

In the current format, it's very annoying.

Matt700wlw
10-04-2006, 06:14 PM
Sorry I was not clear. I meant that Marty did not "fight for Steve" as he claimed. Particularly if he knew Thom was a possible candidate. Also, I'm sure Marty lied (or deceptively worded) his statement that he knew nothing about the Reds pursuing Thom. Yes, I know Marty isn't the one that makes the final hiring decision.

Marty can't go over his bosses head and discuss who they may be pursuing until management makes an official decision....

AZ could have said "no" and that would have been the end of it.

They didn't, it got done, and now it's public knowledge.

I have certain restrictions I have to abide by, fair or not, at my job, ESPECIALLY working in the media, even though I'm not a "personality" (yet :))

REDREAD
10-04-2006, 06:16 PM
Why do you hate this so much?

I'm just curious...


I don't hate it. I'm just saying the Reds will milk the father-son connection. Nothing necessarily wrong with that.

I am relieved that Thom will only do 45 radio games though.

I hope the guy they pair up with Marty the rest of the time will help reign Marty in and keep him on topic. I doubt Thom will do that, although Chip has a point, we should give him a chance.

So in essence, I can't wait for Marty to retire. He's deteriorated to the point where listening to the games is a lot less enjoyable. I hope they don't pair him up with someone passive like Steve again. I also hope that Thom isn't corrupted with Marty's "style" when they share the radio booth.

REDREAD
10-04-2006, 06:17 PM
Marty can't go over his bosses head and discuss who they may be pursuing until management makes an official decision....
.

Then Marty should tell the press that he's not at liberty to discuss potential candidates or give a "no comment".

Instead, Marty lied. Sadly, that's acceptable in society today.

Matt700wlw
10-04-2006, 06:20 PM
Then Marty should tell the press that he's not at liberty to discuss potential candidates or give a "no comment".

Instead, Marty lied. Sadly, that's acceptable in society today.

Maybe he, honestly, at the point it came up (which was within a day or two after the Steve news broke), he didn't know.

Last time on the banana phone (not the 13 minute delay last week, the one before that) he didn't flat out say "no."....he said certain hurdles would have to be overcome if it were to happen (parphrasing), which was different from the previous story in the paper.

Well...it happened. Those hurdles were overcome, thanks to the management of the Diamondbacks, and Bob Castellini.

Ltlabner
10-04-2006, 06:24 PM
Sorry I was not clear. I meant that Marty did not "fight for Steve" as he claimed. Particularly if he knew Thom was a possible candidate. Also, I'm sure Marty lied (or deceptively worded) his statement that he knew nothing about the Reds pursuing Thom. Yes, I know Marty isn't the one that makes the final hiring decision.

And you know this how?

And you are assuming he knew Thom was a candidate.

So your statement that Marty lied is based on mere assertions and zero facts.

You don't care for Marty. That's fine by me, but don't make things up.

Team Clark
10-04-2006, 06:24 PM
Didn't marty say he fought for steve stewart to keep his job.

Yeah, I'm sure he fought REALLY hard.... until someone said "Hey, what about bringing Thom back"..... Steve Who?

registerthis
10-04-2006, 06:26 PM
Sorry I was not clear. I meant that Marty did not "fight for Steve" as he claimed. Particularly if he knew Thom was a possible candidate. Also, I'm sure Marty lied (or deceptively worded) his statement that he knew nothing about the Reds pursuing Thom. Yes, I know Marty isn't the one that makes the final hiring decision.

I know...I'm sure...he lied...

You must be privy to a lot of inside information that simply doesn't filter down to the masses. Either that, or what you meant to write was "I think" and "I believe."

Joseph
10-04-2006, 06:35 PM
Yeah, I'm sure he fought REALLY hard.... until someone said "Hey, what about bringing Thom back"..... Steve Who?

Would you blame him though. If he and Steve were best friends, that still isn't the same as father and son.

Team Clark
10-04-2006, 06:41 PM
Would you blame him though. If he and Steve were best friends, that still isn't the same as father and son.

Nope. Don't blame him. I like the move. I liked Steve but I like Thom better. Now, if Wayne can do this type of move with the Pitching Staff!!! :laugh:

StillFunkyB
10-04-2006, 08:39 PM
Nope. Don't blame him. I like the move. I liked Steve but I like Thom better. Now, if Wayne can do this type of move with the Pitching Staff!!! :laugh:

Ding Ding Ding Ding.....

Tell him what he's won Chuck!

GAC
10-04-2006, 09:52 PM
Does Thomas like Dunn? :lol:

gilpdawg
10-04-2006, 09:57 PM
Sorry I was not clear. I meant that Marty did not "fight for Steve" as he claimed. Particularly if he knew Thom was a possible candidate. Also, I'm sure Marty lied (or deceptively worded) his statement that he knew nothing about the Reds pursuing Thom. Yes, I know Marty isn't the one that makes the final hiring decision.
I figure that Steve knew this was in the works as well. Steve probably asked management, "Hey, what's up with my contract." And they said, "We are gonna try to get Marty's boy in here." Do you really think Steve would be upset about Marty wanting to work with his son? The whole "Marty fought for Steve" was just a PR thing, IMO. But, Marty shouldn't have fought for Steve if Thom was the other option, and Steve should know that too. When listening to the final game, the emotion in BOTH Marty and Steve's voices sounded very sincere to me. I don't get all this conspiracy theory "Marty screwed Steve" talk. I think it's BS, and I'm not even that big of a Marty fan.

goreds2
10-04-2006, 10:19 PM
10/5/06 on 700WLW:

6PM-6:30 SPORTSTALK WITH ANDY FURMAN
Why Thom Brennaman really is the heir apparent!

http://www.700wlw.com/pages/programming.html

goreds2
10-04-2006, 10:24 PM
They'll do games together, and Marty said if they want Thom to do 6 and Marty to be 3, for exmaple....he has no problem with that.

He said he could think of nothing better than to pass the torch to his own son.

With all due respect to Thom, Marty has to continue to do his traditional 6 innings. (At least I hope so :) )

goreds2
10-04-2006, 10:38 PM
Does anyone know if THOM has a "punch line" after his team wins?

(Marty: "And This One Belongs To The Reds!")

fewfirstchoice
10-04-2006, 11:28 PM
I dont understand all this Marty hating going on here at redszone.I for one love the way Marty calls a game and I am very glad the Reds have one of the best to call the game on the radio.

I mean my I grew up listening to Marty with my father call games and for me he is the voice of the Reds and that will never change.(for me anyway)Every time the Reds win and for some reason Im not listening to the broadcast the first thing I think of is "and this one belongs to the Reds",the second thing is"this is the old left hander rounding third and heading for home".I guess what Im trying to say is that Im a fan first and fore most and will never turn my back on what I was brought up on.One more thing I would like to add is how can so many here just beable to forget so easy.I mean I bet 90% of the people on this board have a favorite call from a Reds game.Im willing to bet the man calling that play was Marty,how can you all forget so easy and start calling him a bum.I just dont understand.If anyone can help please do,to me Marty is the voice everyone should associate with Reds baseball,well anyway I do.MArty is a Hall of Famer and thats all I need to say.

goreds2
10-04-2006, 11:40 PM
Here are more details. I do not think they have been posted on this thread. It looks as though Thom will only do 40 or so games with Marty.
CINCINNATI -- The lure of coming home to work with his father proved too irresistible for Thom Brennaman.
The 43-year-old veteran broadcaster, the son of Hall of Fame voice Marty Brennaman, joined the Reds' radio and television broadcast teams on Wednesday and was signed to a four-year contract.

"I just can't tell you how excited I am to be back here," Thom Brennaman said during a press conference at Great American Ball Park. "This is just awesome."

Brennaman, who worked for the Arizona Diamondbacks since their inception in 1995 and did television play-by-play the past nine seasons, will work approximately 90 games for the Reds. Of those, 45 will be on radio with his father at WLW-AM.

The rest will be with FSN Ohio, which expanded its television rights next season, from 100 to 145 games. Current broadcasters George Grande and Chris Welsh remain contracted to do 100 games.

An opening next to Marty Brennaman was created at WLW when the Reds decided to not to renew the contract of partner Steve Stewart in August. Thom said that he'd read about Stewart's situation, but since he was under contract with Arizona, never made any inquiries with his father.

Marty Brennaman, who has 42 seasons in broadcasting, joined the Reds in 1974. He was honored with the Ford Frick Award and joined the broadcaster's wing of the Baseball Hall of Fame in 2000.

"I didn't think this day would ever come," Marty Brennaman said. "I quite honestly never dreamed it would ever come. I've always been envious of Jack Buck, God rest his soul, for getting to work with Joe. Harry [Caray], who worked with his grandson, Chip, and then Skip would work with his son, Chip, now in Atlanta. There were so many obstacles to overcome to get [Thom] to come to Cincinnati."

Among the bigger roadblocks -- Thom was still under contract with the Diamondbacks. The Reds, led by chief executive officer Bob Castellini and chief operating officer John Allen, sought permission to speak with Brennaman in late August.

"Jeff Moorad, our CEO with the Diamondbacks, left a message saying he got a very interesting phone call," said Thom. "'The Reds called to ask for permission to talk to you.' I was as stunned as probably he was when he got the call."

Brennaman said "a half-dozen" clubs had sought permission to talk with him, but he never had any interest. He also did not seek the Reds opening in 2003 when Stewart replaced retiring legend Joe Nuxhall.

"The last couple of times it's been open, I really haven't been interested," he said. "I was at a place in time where I was still trying to build my career. I'm still trying to build my career."

Arizona granted permission this time and eventually released Brennaman from his obligation so he could move to Cincinnati. He thanked his old boss, Moorad, and also praised Castellini and Allen for helping clear numerous obstacles.

"They have made dreams come true today," Brennaman said. "The dream of working with my dad, who I still feel is the best announcer in baseball. I don't say that as a son about his dad. I listen to games on radio. He is the best broadcaster in Major League Baseball. I hope I can still learn from him."

Another consideration was a personal one. Brennaman's wife, Polly, was born and raised in the Phoenix area, and the couple has two children, Ella Mae and Luke.

"If she wanted to say no, [it would be] no problem," Brennaman said. "But once I could feel she was turning and going in that direction, [it was a] no-brainer as far as everything else."

A Cincinnati native, Brennaman attended Anderson High School and went to college at Ohio University. One of his first professional jobs was calling Reds games on WLWT-TV in the late 1980s with Johnny Bench. He was also a weekend sports anchor for the station and later he went on to call University of Cincinnati men's basketball games on WXIX-TV.

A play-by-play job to call Cubs games for WGN television and radio lured Brennaman out of Cincinnati for six seasons. From there it was on to Arizona, but Cincinnati was never far from his thoughts.

"This is a town that I love and care about more than you can ever know," he said. "Whether I was in Chicago or Phoenix or all parts in between, I can tell you what's going on with Anderson High School football. I can tell you Colerain and St. X are going play a [heck] of a game sometime this fall. I can tell you what's going on with UC basketball, and I can tell you that the Buckeyes are on their way to playing in Glendale on Jan. 8 [in the BCS college football championship]."

Whether or not Ohio State is playing in the national championship, Brennaman will call play-by-play for the FOX television network, as well as for NFL games. He will also continue to work play-by-play on FOX's national baseball Game of the Week. Because of the new broadcast contract FOX has with Major League Baseball, he will miss Friday and Saturday Reds games for 26 weeks.

"We found a way to work through it," Brennaman said. "John and I sat down on the phone and in person and just hammered through all this kind of stuff. It's rare that you find organizations anywhere that will let you do both of these things. I'm so grateful they are allowing me to do both."

A few more questions remain for the Reds -- namely, who will fill out the television and radio teams? Allen said that the club is looking for someone to do 120 games on WLW and about 15 ro 20 for FSN.

"We're looking. We don't have a timeline," Allen said. "Ideally, it would be a former player. Never say never, but our focus on that position so far he been a former player."

Where does Nuxhall, who came back for a handful of games this season, fit in? Allen said that Nuxhall could return for eight or nine games on radio next season depending on his health and the schedule.

Finally, what are Marty Brennaman's long-term plans? The 64-year-old told MLB.com last month that he'd like to have four more years on the air full-time before cutting to a part-time schedule. On Wednesday he saw a clear line of succession forming with Thom.

"I told them if the day ever comes and they want to make him the marquee name in this grouping, they've got my blessing," Marty said. "If they want me to do three innings and he did six, that's fine with me. If I'm going to pass the torch, so to speak, I might as well pass it on to my son."


Mark Sheldon is a reporter for MLB.com. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20061004&content_id=1698664&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin

George Foster
10-05-2006, 12:15 AM
And you know this how?

And you are assuming he knew Thom was a candidate.

So your statement that Marty lied is based on mere assertions and zero facts.

You don't care for Marty. That's fine by me, but don't make things up.

Ya, right! Marty and Thom never talk to each other. They just meet at Christmas dinner.

Matt700wlw
10-05-2006, 12:41 AM
Ya, right! Marty and Thom never talk to each other. They just meet at Christmas dinner.

Both Marty and Thom never thought it would happen because of Thom's contract in AZ, even when Castellini decided he wanted to go after Thom.

When it became a possibility, because AZ let it become one, they went with it.

When Marty was first asked about it in the paper, shortly after the Steve news came out, he said it would never happen. He belived it...he always did.

A couple banana phone's ago, a caller asked Marty about it, and Marty said he didn't think it would because of the obstacles that would have to be hurdled...which is different than his previous answer....why? Because the situation had changed....the interest had been expressed by Castellini...

I know you think Marty lied to the fans....but trust me...he didn't....Not as if he's really obligated to say anything about what's going on behind closed doors, anyway...

WVRedsFan
10-05-2006, 02:14 AM
And I believe Matt is right. If you take the time to watch the Ohio University video posted earlier either here or on ORG, Marty told Thom that there was "no way in hell" he'd get the Cubs job, but he did. My feeling is that he Thom the exact same thing about this job. Remember, Marty was the guy who said there would be "no way in hell" Junior would come to Cincinnati.

No matter. Thom and Marty with Joe and probably another former player is exciting. It's a sign of change and a very good one. No doubt, Thom will succeed Marty as "the voice" with Marty still dropping by for years to come after that. It's a sign that Bob Castellini understands the traditions of Reds baseball. Unlike some new to the Reds or too young to remember, tradition is important to most of us. As some of us remember Waite Hoyt, Claude Sullivan, Ed Kennedy and others, truth is that the Reds always had quality broadcasters down through the years. The signing of Thom Brenneman is another plus for an organization that seemed to be in decline just a year ago.

Sure, I hated "the trade" and a lot that's gone on this year. I despised the Narron extension and the retread pitchers we seem to collect at every opportunity, but even with his detractors, Marty is quality entertainment. you either love him or hate him. And he is the Reds as much as Adam Dunn or Junior Griffey is. Thom will carry on that tradition,with any luck, for another couple of generations.

Tradition is nice.

REDREAD
10-05-2006, 10:39 AM
And you know this how?

And you are assuming he knew Thom was a candidate.

So your statement that Marty lied is based on mere assertions and zero facts.

You don't care for Marty. That's fine by me, but don't make things up.

I can't prove it of course, but if Lance knew that the Reds were trying to get Thom, it's pretty safe to assume Marty did too.

Hasn't it been established that Marty has input in the selection process? Isn't it safe to assume he was either at the meetings where Thom's name was discussed? Isn't it reasonable to assume that Marty was asked if Thom was even open to moving to Cincy?

If Lance knew, it's a HUGE stretch to say that Marty didn't. Who is likely to be more in the "loop"? Plus, I'm sure Lance told Marty if he put it on his blog.
This looks like one of the worst kept "secrets" the Reds ever had. The only reason it was doubted here (including by me) was because the details weren't quite clear. If Lance had said Thom would do 45 radio games with the Reds, and keep his Fox gig, that would've been much more believable.

REDREAD
10-05-2006, 10:42 AM
Yeah, I'm sure he fought REALLY hard.... until someone said "Hey, what about bringing Thom back"..... Steve Who?

:laugh: That's what I'm saying.

This part is speculation, but I had the feeling that Marty never liked Steve to begin with. He even made it a point to remind us that Steve was not his first choice when they announced Steve would be let go. Talk about a backhand smack to Steve on the way out.

Here's what I think.. Marty knew Thom was a candidate. Marty was worried that people would blame him for Steve getting fired to bring Thom in. So Marty gave the big "I fought for him" speech. But it's obvious that Marty did not "fight for" Steve's job.

Note, I don't think Marty got Steve fired. Obviously, Marty is not the boss. He might've asked for a new partner (I don't know), but ultimately it is not Marty's call.

REDREAD
10-05-2006, 10:43 AM
I know...I'm sure...he lied...

You must be privy to a lot of inside information that simply doesn't filter down to the masses. Either that, or what you meant to write was "I think" and "I believe."

If you and Ltbatner want to be naive enough to believe that Lance knew all the details about the Reds' pursuit of Thom, but Marty didn't, go ahead.

traderumor
10-05-2006, 11:05 AM
I never said Thom isnt qualified. Im simply saying Thom should replace Marty when Marty is done. Two pencil jocks weilding the announcing is sometimes like listening to two Hollywood actors trying to report on the policies of the govt. Somebody with some relative experience playing the sport makes it more worthwhile.

Hopefully they add someone else while Marty takes his 3 innings off doing whatever the heck he does. (what DOES he do anyways? Is PBP that strenuous?)What you just said is completely different than making charges of "nepotism to the nth degree."

SultanOfSwing
10-05-2006, 11:06 AM
Thom to say "This one belongs to the Reds"?

I wondered this, because that is the best part of a Reds' broadcast. Steve just ending with "and the Reds win it" is nowhere near the same. I wonder if now that Marty's son is in the booth, and with the inevitable passing of the torch, he will continue this tradition? I don't know if I could enjoy Reds' games as much without that signature line.

What do you think?

timmario66
10-05-2006, 11:19 AM
Pic just said on 1530 that Pat Tabler's name has come up for the other spot. Says he does Blue Jays games and his daughter is an intern for the Reds. Never heard him before but has to be better than Brantley.

macro
10-05-2006, 11:20 AM
I think Thom or any son-of-a-legend would want to make his own mark rather than copy something that's already been done. Don't look for Thom to be borrowing that phrase.

westofyou
10-05-2006, 11:31 AM
I think Thom or any son-of-a-legend would want to make his own mark rather than copy something that's already been done. Don't look for Thom to be borrowing that phrase.

Well the new regime needs more ad space to generate revenue, I suggest.

"And that's another "JTM Win" (TM) packaged and shelved for Reds fans to salivate over."

registerthis
10-05-2006, 11:37 AM
"And that's another A&E Door Slam by the Reds, who win it 6 to 4."

dabvu2498
10-05-2006, 11:40 AM
I dunno... Joe was "allowed" to say it.

See Game 2, 1990 World Series.

Heath
10-05-2006, 12:38 PM
Pic just said on 1530 that Pat Tabler's name has come up for the other spot. Says he does Blue Jays games and his daughter is an intern for the Reds. Never heard him before but has to be better than Brantley.

Tabler is a Hamilton Native.

westofyou
10-05-2006, 12:39 PM
Tabler is a Hamilton Native.

And a lifetime .282 hitter.

Please no more pitchers in the booth, give me a position players perspective.

dabvu2498
10-05-2006, 01:08 PM
Tabler is a Hamilton Native.

And a McNick grad. (But his sons go/went to Moe.)

I see no problems with his hiring, unless he sounds like Gilbert Gottfried or thinks he's Joe Morgan.

REDREAD
10-05-2006, 01:26 PM
I know you think Marty lied to the fans....but trust me...he didn't


Let's follow the news that we've heard. Naturally, none
of this is legal proof that could be used in a trial, but it's the
best we have as fans.

On 8/19, we found out that Steve was out for sure.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50375&highlight=Lance+Thom

====================

Here's Lance reporting that Thom would be hired. I didn't take the time to figure out the exact date on his
blog when he reported that the Reds were going to hire Thom, but it was several weeks prior to 9/30 according to this entry. Naturally, it might
not have been a done deal at that point (I'm sure it wasn't), but it looked like it was
serious enough to convince Lance that it was only a matter of working out the details.




Reds announcer news
Saturday 09-30-2006 4:09pm
TB TBA.....Thom Brennaman to be announced.
Despite continued media speculation about other candidates, as I reported several weeks ago,
Thom Brennaman will be named to the Reds broadcast booth. I would not be surprised
to see the Reds use RedsFest to make a big splash with it.......but it will most
likely become public sooner. Also expect a former Reds player to be added to the broadcast team.


======================================

Here's what Ltbatner said he heard on the radio on 8/20:



Caught Marty B with the 2 angry guys this morning. I normally don't listen to them
but my father had them on when I got in the car.

Marty said he was very sad to see that this decision was made but
that "he had seen it comming". He said Steve had really grown and
progressed from year 1 to year 2. He made a comment about "fighting for Steve like a dog"
....that that for what it's worth. He did not elaborate what this meant at all.
Overall he came across as someone genuinely dissapointed to see his coworker being let go.


In other words, this is one of the things I am accusing Marty of lying about, that he
"fought like a dog" for Steve's job. In contrast, I bet Marty was glad to Steve go,
as evidenced by Marty frequently reminding everyone that "Steve wasn't my first choice".

====================================

Here's what Sea Ray reported:


Paul Daugherty told me (via E-mail at the time) that Thom wanted the job when Steve
was hired. I was amazed since I felt Thom was doing very well as the only broadcaster
the D-backs ever had but Paul said he was willing to take a cut to come to Cincy.
So yes, I suspect this has been in the works for awhile and it was bogus for Marty
to say he knew nothing about Steve being canned or who his replacement might be.
I wonder how the Reds could sign him for next year while still under contract to Az?


This establishes that Thom has wanted the job for awhile, and probably let the Reds know it long
before Steve was let go. It's kind of natural to assume that Marty knew Thom wanted the job and was willing to take a paycut, since Daughtry knew.

==============================



This just in from Marc's blog:

Thursday, August 24, 2006
Father knows best?

SAN FRANCISCO -- Regarding the report circulating today that Thom Brennaman
will move into the Reds' radio booth for next season, Marty had this to say:

"That is unequivocally not true."



Here is another thing that I am accusing Marty of lying about. Note the extremely
strong denial by Marty. He could've said, "I don't know", "I can't comment about
internal matters", "That's not my decision" or a number of other appropriate responses.
Instead, Marty chose to make an official statement that was intended to make us think
it had no chance at all of happening.

Lance reported Thom was coming over in the beginning of September. Steve was officially let
go on 8/19. The search for Steve's replacement probably began well before 8/19. No doubt
Thom was considered a candidate before then. No doubt Marty knew the Reds were considering
Thom. No doubt that Marty knew Thom wanted to come here and was willing to take
a pay cut (since Paul Daughtery knew that years ago) At the beginning of Sept., Lance knew
it was close enough to declare it done..

Yet, Marty claims on Aug 24 that it is "unequivocally not true." Marty also claimed he
"fought like a dog " for Steve, despite the putdowns he's put on Steve. That's two blatant
lies by Marty. As I said before, it's sad that it's now acceptable (and expected) for public
figures to blatantly lie.

EDIT: Now I see that Marty made that strong denial in response to the report that leaked Thom's hiring. That's an even stronger case that Marty lied. The report was right.

goreds2
10-05-2006, 01:32 PM
Thom to say "This one belongs to the Reds"?

I wondered this, because that is the best part of a Reds' broadcast. Steve just ending with "and the Reds win it" is nowhere near the same. I wonder if now that Marty's son is in the booth, and with the inevitable passing of the torch, he will continue this tradition? I don't know if I could enjoy Reds' games as much without that signature line.

What do you think?

It the Reds would win in extra innings, Joe Nuxhall would say the "And This One Belongs To The Reds" line.

I would hate to see that line go away.

Unassisted
10-05-2006, 06:04 PM
That's two blatant
lies by Marty. As I said before, it's sad that it's now acceptable (and expected) for public
figures to blatantly lie.

EDIT: Now I see that Marty made that strong denial in response to the report that leaked Thom's hiring. That's an even stronger case that Marty lied. The report was right.
OK, let's assume you're right. What was Marty accomplishing by lying?

I'd say two things:
a) Protecting his own public image.
b) Keeping the relationship with Steve comfortable.

I guess this doesn't bother me as much as it did at first. Sometimes bosses know things about future personnel changes that they can't share with the people under them. I've been high enough in management to know about, weigh in on and even lobby for layoffs before the coworkers who were affected by them. I had to keep those things secret and this seems like much the same thing. Marty wasn't Steve's boss, but assuming he was made privy to the replacement of Steve with Thom or even that he personally lobbied for it, he had an obligation to keep it quiet.

It's plausible that Marty's boss (John Allen?) and even the club's ownership would be concerned about both A and B that I listed above. Maybe he'd been ordered by his boss to keep it quiet?

I'm one of the last people to be defending things that Marty says, but I don't think he owes us an explanation here. To fill in the blanks will only negatively affect A and B above.

registerthis
10-05-2006, 06:31 PM
If you and Ltbatner want to be naive enough to believe that Lance knew all the details about the Reds' pursuit of Thom, but Marty didn't, go ahead.

I think lance does a lot of speculation.

I also recall that Lance postulating that Thom was going to be hired didn't occur until after it had been announced that Stewart wasn't being brought back.

And if you want to think those that don't buy into your agenda-driven conspiracies are naive, be my guest. You'll forgive me if I fail to take your word as gospel.

westofyou
10-05-2006, 07:08 PM
I'd say two things:
a) Protecting his own public image.
b) Keeping the relationship with Steve comfortable.

C) Honoring a gag order on the deal. Sometime scontracts have caveates that go that way... and no way does the business of the Reds always belong to the public, they don't have to utter anything about anything if it's not affecting the public or the team on the field.

Ltlabner
10-05-2006, 10:21 PM
Here's what I think.. Marty knew Thom was a candidate. Marty was worried that people would blame him for Steve getting fired to bring Thom in. So Marty gave the big "I fought for him" speech. But it's obvious that Marty did not "fight for" Steve's job..

Obvious why? Because you have some actual knowledge of the situation or because this is what you've decided to believe?

Ltlabner
10-05-2006, 10:27 PM
Yet, Marty claims on Aug 24 that it is "unequivocally not true." Marty also claimed he "fought like a dog " for Steve, despite the putdowns he's put on Steve. That's two blatant lies by Marty. As I said before, it's sad that it's now acceptable (and expected) for public figures to blatantly lie.

So because Marty uttered what you intrepreted as a put down on Steve that is proof postive that Marty didn't really fight for Steve's job?

Wow....talk about a leap in logic.

Ltlabner
10-05-2006, 10:47 PM
This just in from Marc's blog:

Thursday, August 24, 2006
Father knows best?

SAN FRANCISCO -- Regarding the report circulating today that Thom Brennaman
will move into the Reds' radio booth for next season, Marty had this to say:

"That is unequivocally not true."

It is quite possible that at that time (August 24th) that it may well have been not true that Thom was joining the booth. This is from an article on cincinnatienquirer.com by John Fey, "The process began in late August, when the Reds asked and received permission from the Diamondbacks to talk with Thom." And from Marc Lancaster at cincypost.com "Even when the Reds called the Diamondbacks in late August seeking permission to speak with him about a job, Brennaman maintained a healthy skepticism."

Additionally from Marc's article, "The Reds won't have to write a check to the Diamondbacks or send a player their way as compensation - something that has occurred in similar situations in the past. They will, however, be making a few trips to the desert for exhibition games in coming years." And from daytondailynews.com, "It wasn't the easiest thing in the world to get him (Thom Brennaman) away from Arizona," Castellini said. "All our talks were amicable, but they (the Diamondbacks) didn't want to lose him." Teams that don't want to lose their announcers don't usually roll over quickly which means longer negotations.

So the process didn't start in earnest until late August AND even then Thom was skeptical, AND even then some level of negotiations had to take place with the Diamondbacks (about the exibition games) AND the Diamondbacks didn't just roll over......but somehow Marty is lieing on the 24th that it isn't true that Thom is joining the booth?

It seems to me that on the 24th it was very much true that Thom wasn't joining the broadcast team. Unless you choose to believe "late August" means before the 24th, they called the Diamondbacks for permission to speek to Thom, they granted it with no delay, they contacted Thom right away and the negitations were completed on or prior to August 24th.

And since we don't know what Marty knew about the negotiations (and I choose to believe that he didn't know all the details of the back and forths, nieve or not) for him to say it wasn't true on August 24 makes perfect sense.

Ltlabner
10-05-2006, 10:49 PM
Nm

fearofpopvol1
10-06-2006, 01:20 AM
And I believe Matt is right. If you take the time to watch the Ohio University video posted earlier either here or on ORG, Marty told Thom that there was "no way in hell" he'd get the Cubs job, but he did. My feeling is that he Thom the exact same thing about this job. Remember, Marty was the guy who said there would be "no way in hell" Junior would come to Cincinnati.

No matter. Thom and Marty with Joe and probably another former player is exciting. It's a sign of change and a very good one. No doubt, Thom will succeed Marty as "the voice" with Marty still dropping by for years to come after that. It's a sign that Bob Castellini understands the traditions of Reds baseball. Unlike some new to the Reds or too young to remember, tradition is important to most of us. As some of us remember Waite Hoyt, Claude Sullivan, Ed Kennedy and others, truth is that the Reds always had quality broadcasters down through the years. The signing of Thom Brenneman is another plus for an organization that seemed to be in decline just a year ago.

Sure, I hated "the trade" and a lot that's gone on this year. I despised the Narron extension and the retread pitchers we seem to collect at every opportunity, but even with his detractors, Marty is quality entertainment. you either love him or hate him. And he is the Reds as much as Adam Dunn or Junior Griffey is. Thom will carry on that tradition,with any luck, for another couple of generations.

Tradition is nice.

I agree COMPLETELY. This is a very insightful post. The one thing I love about Cast thus far is his dedication to tradition and the roots that exist in Cincinnati, which has honestly become lost not only in the Reds world, but in baseball. Call me old school or whatever, but it's incredibly meaningful to me.

For those complaining about Thom and 45 games, the guy has other obligations. Just because he got out of 1 doesn't mean he can get out of them all out of the gate. It'll take some time. I'm so grateful to the D'Backs organization for letting him out. That's an amazing gesture.

REDREAD
10-06-2006, 02:17 PM
OK, let's assume you're right. What was Marty accomplishing by lying?

I'd say two things:
a) Protecting his own public image.
b) Keeping the relationship with Steve comfortable.


Marty seems to think he is the official voice of the Reds at times (kind of like Doc Hollywood).

What bothers me is that I was dumb enough to believe Marty when he said there it was "unequivicably untrue". That caused me to question Lance's crediblity. That's not fair to Lance.

Marty could've made a "no comment" and met the same two goals outlined above. Instead, he had to give the strong "I swear to God" denial that a lot of corrupt politicans use.

Not only that, Marty's quote made Marc Lancaster look stupid because Marc believed Marty and published it.

Wouldn't you have had more respect for Marty if he said. "As Thom's father, I'd rather let him speak for himself about his career plans. I really can't confirm or deny that he is in negotiations for another job, out of respect for Thom's privacy". That way Marty doesn't have to lie.

REDREAD
10-06-2006, 02:18 PM
I think lance does a lot of speculation.

I also recall that Lance postulating that Thom was going to be hired didn't occur until after it had been announced that Stewart wasn't being brought back.

And if you want to think those that don't buy into your agenda-driven conspiracies are naive, be my guest. You'll forgive me if I fail to take your word as gospel.

But keep in mind that you are doing your own conspiracy theory, that Lance had a lucky guess. That Lance makes up stuff, etc.

I wrote that post to justify my position and I think it's on solid ground. I didn't expect to change anyone's mind. Some people are just close minded.

If you want to believe Lance just made a lucky guess, and Marty had no clue that Thom was a candidate, go right ahead.

REDREAD
10-06-2006, 02:23 PM
Obvious why? Because you have some actual knowledge of the situation or because this is what you've decided to believe?

What evidence has there been over the last 3 years that Marty even liked the guy? Marty is annoyed by Steve's presence. Marty constantly reminds us that Steve "Wasn't his first choice" and has done other put downs on Steve.
Isn't it a bit naive to think that Marty fought for Steve's job when he knew Thom was a candidate? Just look at how happy Marty is that Thom is on board. It's silly to think that Marty fought to maintain the status quo.

Marty was worried people would think he was a back stabber if Steve left and Thom came in. (BTW, I don't think Marty backstabbed Steve, I'm only accusing him of lying)..

REDREAD
10-06-2006, 02:26 PM
C) Honoring a gag order on the deal. Sometime scontracts have caveates that go that way... and no way does the business of the Reds always belong to the public, they don't have to utter anything about anything if it's not affecting the public or the team on the field.


If there was a gag order, doesn't that mean Marty is forbidden to comment on it?

Marty could've given a nice "no comment". We all know Marty relishes getting attention, being in the spotlight, and acting as an official voice of the Reds.
A "no comment" from Marty doesn't get him into Marc's blog. A firm denial does, although it sure makes Marty look stupid and dishonest when it happens. Not that anyone cares, but I'm not going to believe another word Marty says. It makes me wonder how many of those stories he tells on the air are fabricated. For all we know, all those emails could be phony :laugh:

REDREAD
10-06-2006, 02:32 PM
It So the process didn't start in earnest until late August AND even then Thom was skeptical, AND even then some level of negotiations had to take place with the Diamondbacks (about the exibition games) AND the Diamondbacks didn't just roll over......but somehow Marty is lieing on the 24th that it isn't true that Thom is joining the booth?
.

What you just described is negotations in progress. It is not "unequivicably untrue". When you say something is "unequivicably untrue" doesn't that mean no chance at all? Marty didn't say that it was a long shot or that it would be difficult. He basically said "no chance in hell".




(and I choose to believe that he didn't know all the details of the back and forths, nieve or not) for him to say it wasn't true on August 24 makes perfect sense.

No offense, but your whole post is just rationalizing that there was some kind of escape hatch that made what Marty said not 100% false.
I teach my kids that any misleading statement intended to give someone a false impression is a lie. Too bad society doesn't hold the same standard.
Look at Marty's intent in making that statement. It was designed to squash any rumor of Thom coming over, right? It was designed to make Lance and the other people that leaked the story look bad.

This is speculation, but I suspect Marty was sour that the big surprise of Thom coming over was leaked.

redlegs2370
10-06-2006, 04:07 PM
I will be the first to say that often I have made some comments and had to eat crow. But I took a lot of heat for comments that I made last spring (3-17-2006) about the posibility of one Thom Brennaman coming back to Cincinnat to work with his Dad.


IMHO Steve will never be able to replace Marty. I would hope they would offer Marty's job to his son Tom.

BTW if Steve is so good why didn't other major league baseball teams pick him up or why don't you hear him calling another sport.

If Steve is such a great announcer why did Junior request that Marty or Joe make the call of his 500th home run?

I just don't understand why people think Steve does such a great job.


He has his own family in Arizona where he can play golf whenever he wants. He has been the only play by play guy they have had there. He is the voice of their organization. Cincinnati is not the only place in the world where one can raise a family as hard as it is for some to believe that. As for Jr. he came back because the Reds offered him alot of money and a long term deal. If the Reds had offered him a 2 year deal for $5M a year do you think he would be playing here?

Joe Buck has made a name for himself in St. Louis. He is comfortable following in his fathers footsteps and that is fine for him. But he was already there working with his father. Ever since he started he has been in St. Louis. I did not see Skip Carey come up to Chicago after his father died.

I am afraid I do not have Steves resume with me now so I do not know what other sports he has done. How many other sports did Waite Hoyt do? What about Red Barber? Vin Scully and Jack Buck did not do other sports until they had several year under their belts. And you did not answer my question about Joe Nuxhall. Why are there not teams beating down his door to get them to do their games? How many other sports has Joe announced?

You do not get that with Steve because you have already made up your mind about him. The problem you and others have with Steve is not because he is not a good announcer. It is because he is not Joe Nuxhall. One day, and I hope it is not for a long time, Joe will meet his maker. I hope by then you will be able to move on.



Maybe he would want to come home and be close to family. Why did Junior want to come back to Cincinnati? There were other teams just as close to his Fla home that had a better chance of winning a World Series. I thought Cincinnati was a special place that people wanted to raise their family; I guess I must be wrong.

Joe Buck has made a pretty good name for himself (Super Bowl, and World Series) and he followed his father in St. Louis; in fact many people think he is one of the greatest in pbp. Why would he want to stay in St. Louis? Oh maybe because it is a baseball town. Didn't St. Louis already replace the announcer that took Jack Buck's place? Why, well I'm sure it had something with St. Louis fans living in the past and their enjoyment for Jack Buck. It is those kind of things that makes St. Louis such a great sports town.

I know Steve was with Baltimore but he was not a full time announcer. Name another sport he does? I don't see him on Fox doing NFL games or here him doing NCAA basketball games.

The great announcers, Marty, Jack Buck, Vin Scully, and Ernie Harwell (just to name a few) will announce the game and it is like a story. I don't get that with Steve. You said I didn't read this post if I didn't understand. I want more than someone telling me the inning, score, pitch count, and who is on first.

Matt700wlw
10-06-2006, 04:24 PM
What you just described is negotations in progress. It is not "unequivicably untrue". When you say something is "unequivicably untrue" doesn't that mean no chance at all? Marty didn't say that it was a long shot or that it would be difficult. He basically said "no chance in hell".


And for years there was "no chance in hell." He always believed there was "no chance in hell."

The question came up again on the banana phone and he changed his tone...he said there would a lot of obstacles to hurdle, and didn't see it happening.

I wonder why he changed his tone....because the situation changed it's tone.

Chip R
10-06-2006, 04:38 PM
And for years there was "no chance in hell." He always believed there was "no chance in hell."

The question came up again on the banana phone and he changed his tone...he said there would a lot of obstacles to hurdle, and didn't see it happening.

I wonder why he changed his tone....because the situation changed it's tone.


It had to be because of the banana phone!!!11!! All hail the power of the banana phone!1!11!!

Cedric
10-06-2006, 04:49 PM
Marty seems to think he is the official voice of the Reds at times (kind of like Doc Hollywood).

What bothers me is that I was dumb enough to believe Marty when he said there it was "unequivicably untrue". That caused me to question Lance's crediblity. That's not fair to Lance.

Marty could've made a "no comment" and met the same two goals outlined above. Instead, he had to give the strong "I swear to God" denial that a lot of corrupt politicans use.

Not only that, Marty's quote made Marc Lancaster look stupid because Marc believed Marty and published it.

Wouldn't you have had more respect for Marty if he said. "As Thom's father, I'd rather let him speak for himself about his career plans. I really can't confirm or deny that he is in negotiations for another job, out of respect for Thom's privacy". That way Marty doesn't have to lie.

Accusing someone of lying is a pretty serious thing to do. I know it's just a message board, but it's still someone's reputation and I wouldn't be eager to do that.

I'm not defending this because it's Marty either, just in general I'd want more concrete facts instead of just inuendo and coincidences.

Is it really that important to you that you would question the honor and integrity of another person? Sorry if I find that classless.

Matt700wlw
10-06-2006, 05:15 PM
It had to be because of the banana phone!!!11!! All hail the power of the banana phone!1!11!!

http://www.dasgenie.com/Graphics/Blog/22-BananaPhone.jpg

dabvu2498
10-06-2006, 05:20 PM
http://www.dasgenie.com/Graphics/Blog/22-BananaPhone.jpg

http://www.allmedia.com.au/bananana/

Ltlabner
10-06-2006, 06:56 PM
But keep in mind that you are doing your own conspiracy theory, that Lance had a lucky guess. That Lance makes up stuff, etc.

I wrote that post to justify my position and I think it's on solid ground. I didn't expect to change anyone's mind. Some people are just close minded.

If you want to believe Lance just made a lucky guess, and Marty had no clue that Thom was a candidate, go right ahead.

Marty didn't say that there was no way that Thom wasn't a canidate, he said that it wasn't true on Aug 24th that Thom was comming to Cincy to be a broadcaster. There's a big difference.

By the way I find it humours you throw around the "closed minded" lable when you have been clearly shown a timeline that destroys your fantesy story yet you cling to your interpretations, your believes and your bias despite the facts at hand.

Ltlabner
10-06-2006, 07:02 PM
What you just described is negotations in progress. It is not "unequivicably untrue". When you say something is "unequivicably untrue" doesn't that mean no chance at all? Marty didn't say that it was a long shot or that it would be difficult. He basically said "no chance in hell". .

No, it means that at the time of the question (Aug 24th) that is was not true that Thom was comming to Cincinnati. That doesn't mean there wasn't any negotiations or that Thom wasn't a canidant for the position. It simply means that there had been no offical deal struck at that time. You are choosing to add the "no chance at all part" and then building your argument around that.



No offense, but your whole post is just rationalizing that there was some kind of escape hatch that made what Marty said not 100% false. I teach my kids that any misleading statement intended to give someone a false impression is a lie. Too bad society doesn't hold the same standard. Look at Marty's intent in making that statement. It was designed to squash any rumor of Thom coming over, right? It was designed to make Lance and the other people that leaked the story look bad.

You have ZERO idea about what was going on in Martys mind. Zip, Zero, Nada. You can dress it up as that he wanted to confuse people, he was sour, he wanted to make Lance look bad or that he's the 3 horn anti-chirst. The fact of the matter is you have NO idea at all. You choose to believe all of this bizzare consipircy-esque tales. That's your right but you are bascially fabricating this out of thin air.

The simple matter is Marty was asked on Aug 24 whether Thom was going to be the next Reds broadcaster (prarphrasing). At the time of the qustion there was no offical deal struck so his answer of that rumor being false is correct. It's really that simple.

REDREAD
10-09-2006, 09:42 AM
So because Marty uttered what you intrepreted as a put down on Steve that is proof postive that Marty didn't really fight for Steve's job?

Wow....talk about a leap in logic.

No, that's only part of it.

Marty knew:
1. his son wanted to come here
2. that his son was among the candidates to replace Steve,
3. his son would take a paycut to come here

Add those three together, and it doesn't make any sense that Marty "fought like a dog" to save Steve's job. I doubt Marty exerted any energy to try to save Steve's job. The fact that Marty didn't appear to enjoy working with Steve is just a secondary point.

REDREAD
10-09-2006, 09:46 AM
And for years there was "no chance in hell." He always believed there was "no chance in hell."
.

But when Marty talked to Marc, it wasn't at that stage.

Sure, when Steve had 2 more years on his contract and Lindner was running the team, there was no chance. Marty gave a strong Palmero-like denial intended to decieve us. That is a lie. My guess: He probably did that because he was mad at Lance for ruining the big surprise.

REDREAD
10-09-2006, 09:51 AM
Is it really that important to you that you would question the honor and integrity of another person? Sorry if I find that classless.

What about Marty soiling Marc and Lance's reputation? Marty basically told the world that Lance was full of it. And like a fool, I believed him.

Marty gave Marc false information to print.

The ironic thing is that years ago, Bowden gave Marty a fake trade rumor about the Reds and told him to keep it quiet (as a joke). Naturally, Marty told everyone. Marty was steamed when he found out it was a joke and thus began his lifetime crusade against Bowden. How do you think Marty would feel if Lance and Marc began a lifetime grudge against Marty, who actually told a worse lie? After all, Bowden's joke was supposed to be secret. Marty was broadcasting information to the public as fact.

Marty is the one that is classless. You are being blinded by your fandom of him and can't see that he did something wrong. Since you can't defend your positions with facts, you are attacking me personally. I'm sorry, but the Holy Marty is fair game on this board too.

Ltlabner
10-09-2006, 10:10 AM
No, that's only part of it.

Marty knew:
1. his son wanted to come here
2. that his son was among the candidates to replace Steve,
3. his son would take a paycut to come here

Add those three together, and it doesn't make any sense that Marty "fought like a dog" to save Steve's job. I doubt Marty exerted any energy to try to save Steve's job. The fact that Marty didn't appear to enjoy working with Steve is just a secondary point.

Item 1: Thom commented that he didn't consider the move until his wife mentioned that she would be interested in doing so. He didn't think such a move was likely and news reports were that he was suprised when she softened on moving away from AZ. (See my previous posts).

Item 2 was true but the negotiations with Thom didn't start till late August (see my previous posts), well after Steve was told his contract wouldn't be renewed. So it is not inconcievable that Marty did in fact campaign for Steve since the neogtiations with his son didn't happen until after Steve was told he wasn't comming back.

I have no idea about item 3. I don't remember that being reported anywhere. Was it? (I may well have forgotten it).

So when you remove items 1 and 2 since they are false, that only leaves item 3 (assuming this is true).

That doesn't leave much to your arugment.

Ltlabner
10-09-2006, 10:20 AM
Marty is the one that is classless. You are being blinded by your fandom of him and can't see that he did something wrong. Since you can't defend your positions with facts, you are attacking me personally. I'm sorry, but the Holy Marty is fair game on this board too.

Readread, I've laid out a number of facts for you supported by quotes from various news sources. Chief amoung these facts is that negotiations with Thom didn't even start until late August so when Marty was asked about it on 8.24 it's likely that it was, in fact, not true that Thom was comming to town at that time.

It's common knoweldge you don't care for Marty, which of course, is your right. I also think it's fair to say you are also very passonate when you don't care for someone (see: Allen, John and Linder, Carl). Marty is certinally fair game, but could it be somewhat possible that your dislike of Marty is having some impact on your judgement?

REDREAD
10-09-2006, 01:06 PM
Item 1: Thom commented that he didn't consider the move until his wife mentioned that she would be interested in doing so. He didn't think such a move was likely and news reports were that he was suprised when she softened on moving away from AZ. (See my previous posts).


Come on, you accuse me of reaching, and this is the best you can do? :)
So Thom never gave a thought of coming to Cincy until his wife out of the blue initiated it? That's almost what you are claiming. I think Thom was trying to show family came first. Sure, he wouldn't have done it if his wife didn't want to, but here's the chain of events. Thom wanted the job. He talked with his wife. His wife was ok with it. It's backwards to think that Thom didn't want the job until his wife initiated interest. Maybe I didn't say that so clear, but don't you agree that Thom was interested in the job before he approached his wife?

Basically Thom said "I wouldn't move here unless it was ok with my wife". That was the essence of what he said. He got the offer (or at least got the message the Reds were interested) and talked it over with his wife before going further. You are twisting it to make it sound like Thom had no interest until his wife had interest, which contradicts what Daughtery said a couple years ago. (Quoted in this thread).




Item 2 was true but the negotiations with Thom didn't start till late August (see my previous posts), well after Steve was told his contract wouldn't be renewed. So it is not inconcievable that Marty did in fact campaign for Steve since the neogtiations with his son didn't happen until after Steve was told he wasn't comming back.


And Marty lied about it in late August. I'm not going to look back through the thread, but wasn't Marty's "irrevocably untrue" quote around Aug 24, after Lance reported it was in the bag? Step back and be objective. What's more probable?

1. Lance was right.
2. The Reds didn't even start talking to Thom or even consider him until after Aug 24. Lance took a wild guess a few weeks earlier and there was no leak on something as big as this.

Which one makes more sense, based on what eventually happened. Again, there's no way to 100% prove it, because I can't question Marty under oath, but you are being naive to think Marty knew nothing about this on Aug 24.






I have no idea about item 3. I don't remember that being reported anywhere. Was it? (I may well have forgotten it).


Reported by Daughtry. Quoted in this thread. Daughtry also mentioned that Thom was interested in this job back when Steve was given it, which lends big support to #1.




So when you remove items 1 and 2 since they are false, that only leaves item 3 (assuming this is true).

No offense, but they are only false in your mind. Unless you believe Daughtry and Lance were lying. I can't believe that even though we have 20/20 hindsight now, you are ignoring what they said before things were made public.

You are also assuming that Thom never talked to Marty about the Reds being interested. You are also assuming no one in the Reds organization mentioned it to Marty, which I find very hard to believe.

REDREAD
10-09-2006, 01:17 PM
Readread, I've laid out a number of facts for you supported by quotes from various news sources. Chief amoung these facts is that negotiations with Thom didn't even start until late August so when Marty was asked about it on 8.24 it's likely that it was, in fact, not true that Thom was comming to town at that time.

It's common knoweldge you don't care for Marty, which of course, is your right. I also think it's fair to say you are also very passonate when you don't care for someone (see: Allen, John and Linder, Carl). Marty is certinally fair game, but could it be somewhat possible that your dislike of Marty is having some impact on your judgement?


Ok, I read through the entire thread and looked at what you argument supporting Marty was. Here a few quotes that boil it down


And you are assuming he [Marty] knew Thom was a candidate.

Obvious why? Because you have some actual knowledge
of the situation or because this is what you've decided to believe?

"The process began in late August, when the Reds asked and received
permission from the Diamondbacks to talk with Thom." And from Marc
Lancaster at cincypost.com "Even when the Reds called the Diamondbacks
in late August seeking permission to speak with him about a job, Brennaman
maintained a healthy skepticism."


Guess what? August 24 IS late August There's only 5 working days in the month left after the 24th.

Your other defense that Marty didn't know Thom was a candidate is laughable. They are very close to each other. Marty is obviously in tight with the Reds front office. Come on, Marty knew Thom was a candidate on the first day they tried to pursue him.

You are the one chosing to ignore the facts. Your whole argument is based on the fact that you don't consider Aug 24 to be late August and Marty was clueless on the status of Thom. You are the one dismissing everything Lance and Daughtry said. You are also dismissing what actually happened.

And then you are accusing me of making up this whole thing because I don't like Marty. Sorry dude, you are the close minded one in this case. You just can't accept that Saint Marty lied to you. I laid out everything. Marty definitely lied on Aug 24.

Ltlabner
10-09-2006, 01:19 PM
And Marty lied about it in late August. I'm not going to look back through the thread, but wasn't Marty's "irrevocably untrue" quote around Aug 24, after Lance reported it was in the bag? Step back and be objective. What's more probable?


You can say he lied over and over and over but that still doesnt make it so.

Marty's "not true" quote was printed on August 24th.

Negotiations with Thom didn't even start till "late August" and were drawn out.

So how is it a strech to consider that it was, in fact, true on 8.24 that Thom had not agreed to come to Cincy? Realizing, of course, that until the negotiations are complete it is not true that he is comming to town.

The time line and your conspiricy theory do not match up.

And lastly, why are you suddently clinging to Lance's veracity and bulletproof reporting of the facts? That's some mighty thin ice there brotha....

Ltlabner
10-09-2006, 01:24 PM
Guess what? August 24 IS late August There's only 5 working days in the month left after the 24th. .

No kidding.

The negotiations didn't even START till this time. And they were drawn out.

Yet you cling to the idea that they both started and ended all before the 24th and Marty lied about it.

And unless the deal was completely negotiated, and it was a done deal, and Marty knew that Thom was comming to town and he stil said it wasn't true...then his statement was correct.

But again, you have to believe that negotations started in "late August" and were finished by 8.24 and Marty knew about all the details and Lance McM is totally correct in his reporting.

That's a lot of if's for an "openminded" person like yourself. :)

REDREAD
10-09-2006, 01:58 PM
No kidding.

The negotiations didn't even START till this time. And they were drawn out.



You say they were drawn out negotiations. However, if they didn't start until the 24th or later and the announcement was made on Oct 4, that's not a drawn out negotiation. That's fast. That's less than 6 weeks for Thom to talk it over with his family, arrange things with AZ and Fox, decide, etc.

What exactly is drawn out, in your opinon? 5-6 weeks is not a long drawn out process. I'd expect it to take much longer.







Yet you cling to the idea that they both started and ended all before the 24th and Marty lied about it.

NO. I am saying that it was not "irrevocably untrue" on the 24th. All the details may not have been completed, but it was close enough for Lance to declare it as a done deal. You are the one that constantly dismisses that.
Marty's comment was in response to the story leaking.




That's a lot of if's for an "openminded" person like yourself. :)

:rolleyes: Read your own posts buddy. When your first defense is "You couldn't possibly know what was going on", who's the one reaching?

What exactly is your definition of "irrevocably untrue".. Does that mean "maybe" to you? What was Marty's intent in making that statement? Wasn't his intent to make people dismiss the rumor that was leaked?

You are the one clinging.

BTW, don't you think Thom was approached informally before the Reds began negotiations? Doesn't "negotiations" imply that Thom was already interested?
Why would they be negotiating with him if it was irrevocably untrue ?

Have the last word, I'm sure it won't be worth responding to. You refuse to address my points. If you define "negotiations began" as first contact with Thom or "irrecovably untrue" to mean that the Reds were talking with Thom but nothing was official, then logic isn't going to work with you.

RedFanAlways1966
10-09-2006, 02:11 PM
Anyone else catch the "bad joke" made by Thom in the Divisional series? A fan was wearing a special device which helps him see (it looks kind of strange). They showed the man and Thom made some comments about how ridiculous binoculars have become these days (cannot remember his exact comments). The man's family evidently contacted FOX-TV and complained. Thom made an apology at the start of the next game.

Truly a human error and something that Thom did not know about or mean to make light of when said. But he was man enough to apologize (or made to do so). I just hope we do not hear news that the man with poor sight is filing a multi-million-dollar defamation of character lawsuit aginst FOX and Thom!

Ltlabner
10-09-2006, 02:53 PM
Have the last word, I'm sure it won't be worth responding to. You refuse to address my points. If you define "negotiations began" as first contact with Thom or "irrecovably untrue" to mean that the Reds were talking with Thom but nothing was official, then logic isn't going to work with you.

I'm not going to quibble over your made up deffinitions or try to read into every last nuance of your interpretations. This is a very simple matter. Was it true or not true on 8.24 that a deal had been worked out with Thom? That's it. It's that simple.

You choose to believe the negotations began in late August, had to involve Thom/agent, the Reds and the Diamondbacks, permissions were sought and granted, exibition game shedules were worked out, contract details of radio time, tv time and Fox national programing were worked out and all completed by 8.24. This would all have to happen so that Marty could "lie" about it on 8.24.

I choose to believe negotations started in late August and when asked on 8.24 there was no deal struck. So when asked if it was true, the common sense answer was no. It is not true. Simple stuff really.

The Marty was responding to a rumor that Thom was going to be in the broadcast booth. Since the chances of a complex deal being worked out on 8.24 (the date when it was posted) when the negotiations didn't even start till "late August" are remote, slim and non-existant his statement that it wasn't true isn't a lie.

The question wasn't is Thom negotiating. The question wasn't is Thom interested. The question wasn't is Thom a canidant. The question wasn't has Thom talked this over with his wife. The question WAS is Thom going to be in the broadcast booth next year (paraphrasing)? And since there is very little chance a deal had be ironed out by that time the simple answer to a simple question is, NO it is not true.

You can parse words, read into symantics, impose your own interpretations on answers, and generally igrore the facts, but common sense, IMO, dictates that unless it was offical that Thom had worked out a deal, Martys answer was going to be no, it wasn't true. And that answer is correct since no deal had been struck at that time.

pedro
10-09-2006, 02:57 PM
I guess Marty just isn't as nice as Jim Bowden is.

REDREAD
10-10-2006, 10:24 AM
I'm not going to quibble over your made up deffinitions or try to read into every last nuance of your interpretations. This is a very simple matter. Was it true or not true on 8.24 that a deal had been worked out with Thom? That's it. It's that simple.


No, you are the one changing the definition of what Marty said.
Was it "irrevovably untrue" on 8/24 that Thom was coming here.

Well, there was some discussion going on with Thom (or negotations).
That means it is not "irrecovably untrue". In fact, it was highly probable he was coming here at that time since they announced it 6 weeks later.

Again, look at Marty's motive for making that statement. Was it to give a "no comment"? Nope. Was the intent to mislead us and give us the impression that there was no way Thom was coming here? Yes. Doesn't the word "irrecovable" mean the situation isn't going to change?

I know I promised to say no more, but the debate has never been about whether Thom was signed, sealed and delivered on Aug 24. Obviously he wasn't. That's common sense, and you know darn well I never said the contract was signed on that date or claimed it was a done deal then.
The deal was probably just about complete, given that Lance got the scoop that it was going to happen. But again, you constantly choose to ignore that. Lance said it would happen. Marty said it wouldn't happen. It ended up happening? Who was wrong? Marty. Is it reasonable to assume that Marty made a false statement despite being close to the situation and knowing all the facts? Yes. You can not dispute that, all you can do is keep on moving the target. Now that your "drawn out negotiations" arguement failed, you had to reach for something else to defend St Marty.

Ltlabner
10-10-2006, 10:51 AM
Again, look at Marty's motive for making that statement. Was it to give a "no comment"? Nope. Was the intent to mislead us and give us the impression that there was no way Thom was coming here? Yes. Doesn't the word "irrecovable" mean the situation isn't going to change?

I know I promised to say no more, but the debate has never been about whether Thom was signed, sealed and delivered on Aug 24. Obviously he wasn't. That's common sense, and you know darn well I never said the contract was signed on that date or claimed it was a done deal then.
The deal was probably just about complete, given that Lance got the scoop that it was going to happen. But again, you constantly choose to ignore that. Lance said it would happen. Marty said it wouldn't happen. It ended up happening? Who was wrong? Marty. Is it reasonable to assume that Marty made a false statement despite being close to the situation and knowing all the facts? Yes. You can not dispute that, all you can do is keep on moving the target. Now that your "drawn out negotiations" arguement failed, you had to reach for something else to defend St Marty.

Unless you are a mind reader you have no idea what Marty's intent was when he made his comments on 8.24. That is what I meant when I posted earlier that you had no idea what was going on. Since you can't read his mind, aren't privy to the details and don't have a listening device in Martys house you have ZERO idea what Marty's motivation for his statements were. The best you can do is guess...and since we all know where you stand regarding Marty I wouldn't put any stock in you guessing rationally or without bias.

You claim with great authority you know he did it on purpose to confuse the issue..ok. Give us your proof. I don't mean your adgenda driven guess work. I don't mean you parsing a bunch of words. I don't mean you taking a stab in the dark. Give us something tangiable other than what you think might have happened.

By the way, Marty was dead wrong about Jr not comming to town (see earlier posts). Was he lieing about that also? What was his motivation then?


Doesn't the word "irrecovable" mean the situation isn't going to change?

Actually the responce from Marty was "That is unequivocally not true." Not that it changes anything, but he never said "irrecovable".


I know I promised to say no more, but the debate has never been about whether Thom was signed, sealed and delivered on Aug 24. Obviously he wasn't. That's common sense, and you know darn well I never said the contract was signed on that date or claimed it was a done deal then.

And this is the crux of the argument. At the time of the question it wasn't true that Thom was comming to town because there is very, very little chance the negotiations were complete. Until they are complete it isn't true that he's going to be here. Negotations fall appart all the time. Again it's a simple question that doesn't require the convoluted backstory you are imposing on it. Was it true that Thom was signed to be a broadcaster for the Reds? At the time of the question, no, it wasn't true. So an answer of "no" is, infact the correct answer.


The deal was probably just about complete, given that Lance got the scoop that it was going to happen.

Since the complex negotiations had just started in "late august" its not remotley reasonable to say "the deal was probably just about complete" on August 24th. These were complex, multi party negotiations and those just don't happen in a matter of days. Also consider that it wasn't announced until OCTOBER 4th.

registerthis
10-10-2006, 11:40 AM
could it be somewhat possible that your dislike of Marty is having some impact on your judgement?

Ya THINK? ;)

registerthis
10-10-2006, 11:48 AM
Also consider that it wasn't announced until OCTOBER 4th.

That's all part of Marty's conspiracy. He wanted everyone to THINK the negotiations were taking a long time, so he had the Reds hold off on announcing it until October. In reality, Thom had been signed years ago, but Marty didn't want to face accusations of nepotism so he decided to (in his words) "tolerate that boring-as-drying-paint Steve Stewart" for a couple of years before bringing his son in. Unfortunately for Marty, some shrewd observers were able to crack the conspiracy and expose Marty for the lying scoundrel that he is.

Such is life.

Chip R
10-10-2006, 12:00 PM
What did Marty know and when did he know it?
Was there a second broadcaster on the grassy knoll?
Is Marty a human or an alien from a planet of poofy-haired beings? ;)

Ltlabner
10-10-2006, 12:04 PM
http://www.carrottop.com/merchandise_pix/c_top_8x10_red.gif

Chip, is this the leader of the poofy-haried beings? Or is he just an agent of the underworld? I get those two mixed up all the time.

Chip R
10-10-2006, 12:14 PM
http://www.carrottop.com/merchandise_pix/c_top_8x10_red.gif

Chip, is this the leader of the poofy-haried beings? Or is he just an agent of the underworld? I get those two mixed up all the time.


That's what they want you to think. Actually, this guy is the leader of the poofy-haired beings

http://images.usatoday.com/money/_photos/2004/04/15/trump.jpg

REDREAD
10-10-2006, 03:04 PM
Unless you are a mind reader you have no idea what Marty's intent was when he made his comments on 8.24.


This is simple logic.

1. Marty and Thom probably talked to each other during the process, since they are father and son.
2. So Marty probably had a good idea of what the status of the talks were.
3. Since Marty knew the status of the talks, he knew it was not "irrevocably untrue" that Thom was coming to the Reds.
4. Yet Marty said something false, despite knowing the truth.

Again, you have run out of defenses, so now your defense is "You aren't a mind reader". Guess what? No one is a mind reader, yet we are still able to judge people if we have enough information.

And then you toss in the "You hate Marty" defense. How about addressing the logical facts? I see you have friends jumping in and "helping you".. Apparently since I can find some good in Jim Bowden and I think Marty's skills have slipped, my logical argument is irrelevant. Brilliant job. Very convincing of you, Pedro, and registerthis.








You claim with great authority you know he did it on purpose to confuse the issue..ok. Give us your proof. I don't mean your adgenda driven guess work. I don't mean you parsing a bunch of words. I don't mean you taking a stab in the dark. Give us something tangiable other than what you think might have happened.

How about the fact that Marty said something untrue, when he knew better?
Listen, I don't care why he did it. I can say that maybe he did it because he felt that Lance anouncing it earlier would make it less of a surprise. I can list other reasons about maybe why he did it? All of them are reasonable reasons as to why Marty thinks he's justified in lying to us. But guess what? I really don't care why he lied, because no matter what his reason is, he still lied.
I don't have to explain a motive. The fact is that he lied, and you have been unable to prove otherwise.



By the way, Marty was dead wrong about Jr not comming to town (see earlier posts). Was he lieing about that also? What was his motivation then?


Do you think Marty knew as much about the trade negotations with Seattle as he did about his own son being hired? Come on now, this is weak. MY SPECULATION: Marty was just parroting what John Allen said. Allen repeatedly told the press Jr wasn't coming. Marty didn't expect Bowden to go over Allen's head and get it done. Marty only knew what we knew about the Jr trade (possibly less). That was clearly an opinion.




Actually the responce from Marty was "That is unequivocally not true." Not that it changes anything, but he never said "irrecovable".


Ok, I concede that point, for whatever it's worth, that was an accident on my part.



And this is the crux of the argument. At the time of the question it wasn't true that Thom was comming to town because there is very, very little chance the negotiations were complete.

Again, the "Marty knows nothing about Thom" argument. You said yourself that this was a complex, drawn out search. Yet they announced it 5-6 weeks after Marty's statement. That would seem to indicate that informal discussions had happened long before then. And you still haven't addressed the fact that Lance reported it was practically a done deal weeks earlier.
My guess is that when Lance reported it, they had informally agreed to all the major things. All that was left was the minor tweaking with Fox and AZ and the formal signing. Sure, something could've gone wrong, but it's pretty doubtful. I doubt the Reds publicly ask AZ for formal permission to talk to Thom unless it was in the bag. Otherwise, they end up with egg on their face if he turned them down.

But continue with your fantasy that on Aug 24, Marty thought there was no chance at all for Thom to come here, despite Lance reporting it was essentailly a done deal weeks earlier, and despite the fact that Marty's version of the story means that talks went from 0 (unequivicolly untrue) to 100% in 5-6 weeks (or less).



Until they are complete it isn't true that he's going to be here. Negotations fall appart all the time. Again it's a simple question that doesn't require the convoluted backstory you are imposing on it. Was it true that Thom was signed to be a broadcaster for the Reds? At the time of the question, no, it wasn't true. So an answer of "no" is, infact the correct answer.




Since the complex negotiations had just started in "late august" its not remotley reasonable to say "the deal was probably just about complete" on August 24th. These were complex, multi party negotiations and those just don't happen in a matter of days. Also consider that it wasn't announced until OCTOBER 4th.

My guess is that complex negotiations started long before then. All that was left was the formalizing part of it. Note the "I guess" part there.

Again, you fail to address that Marty deliberately made a misleading statement. Marty wasn't saying that it was a maybe, he was trying to give the impression it wasn't going to happen. And Marty was pretty convincing in getting most of the people on the board to dismiss Lance's claim (including me).

westofyou
10-10-2006, 03:07 PM
My guess is that complex negotiations started long before then.Probably fraught with non-disclosure clauses too.

So when asked Marty doesn't say "no comment" he instead dramitically says "no way"

Either way he can't say yes.

pedro
10-10-2006, 03:20 PM
Tell me this Redread. Why does it even matter?

I honestly don't understand what is so troubling to you about the concept of non-disclosure.

Ltlabner
10-10-2006, 03:20 PM
This is simple logic.

1. Marty and Thom probably talked to each other during the process, since they are father and son.
2. So Marty probably had a good idea of what the status of the talks were.
3. Since Marty knew the status of the talks, he knew it was not "irrevocably untrue" that Thom was coming to the Reds.
4. Yet Marty said something false, despite knowing the truth.

But your "logic" is flawed beyond repair....

1. "Marty and Thom probably talked to each other during the process, since they are father and son" Probably...as in you are assuming this is what took place when you don't know it to be true. You don't know for sure they talked at all. You don't know what level of detail Thom provided Marty if they did talk. It's just as plasable that Thom told Marty, "they've made an offer but there is no way in the world it's going to work" and this is what Marty based is Aug 24th comments on. Subsequent to that BC made a better offer and Thoms wife started to warm to the idea which changed the possibilities. There are just far too many holes and alternative explinations to hang your hat on the one course of events you cling to.

2. "So Marty probably had a good idea of what the status of the talks were." Again, probably as in you are assuming that #2 is true because of your faulty assumption on #1. Thom is a grown man so it's just as easy to believe he didn't keep Marty in the loop on every last detail as it is to believe he called daddy every 5 minutes with an update. Both scenarios are plausable so, again the assumption you base your argument on is flawed.

3. "Since Marty knew the status of the talks, he knew it was not "irrevocably untrue" that Thom was coming to the Reds." You based that he knew the status of the talks based on your faulty #1 and #2 points. Thus this assertion is not logical.

4. "Yet Marty said something false, despite knowing the truth." And thus you arrive at a conclusion based totally on flawed premises that are not iron clad as you seem to believe.

registerthis
10-10-2006, 03:53 PM
This is simple logic.

And yet...

It's not.

redsupport
10-10-2006, 03:56 PM
evaluate what the new york times said today about brenneman junior

Heath
10-10-2006, 04:58 PM
evaluate what the new york times said today about brenneman junior

Gray Lady in regular NYC pompous form - thinks NY Announcer (surprise!) would be better choice than Thom.



TV Sports
On Fox, Sour Notes From a Pair of Veteran Voices

By RICHARD SANDOMIR
Published: October 10, 2006

It was difficult not to see that the left-hander Tyler Johnson had come in to relieve for the St. Louis Cardinals on Sunday night.


His name is on the back of his uniform. Fox flashed up a graphic. To paraphrase the old umpire Jim Honochick, who donned glasses to recognize Boog Powell in a classic Miller Lite commercial: “Hey, that’s Tyler Johnson!” On KTRS, the Cardinals’ radio station, John Rooney did not stumble on the issue. “Tyler Johnson is ready to face Josh Bard,” he said.

• But for 35 seconds, against the visual evidence before him, Fox’s Thom Brennaman insisted that Johnson was the right-hander Josh Kinney. He gave his age and his long years in the minor leagues and said, “Here he is, pitching Game 4 of the National League division series.”

Through the first and second pitches, Johnson was still Kinney. By the time the third pitch was thrown, Brennaman realized his enormous error.

“Oh, I beg your pardon,” he said. Johnson, he discovered, was pitching, not Kinney. Kinney then relieved Johnson.

Brennaman’s faux pas was his own. But Tim McCarver didn’t say a word. And no one else in Fox’s production truck or booth appeared to offer an informational lifeline.

When you become known for making mistakes, or for your immaturity, it’s hard to wash away the image. If you’re a great announcer, it’s easier to forgive the errors.

But Brennaman is not great. He is mediocre, distinguished mainly by an unmodulated megaphone-like voice that is like a parody of what a sportscaster should sound like. It does not convey a warm welcome, or the promise of excellence, as do Vin Scully or ESPN’s Jon Miller, who was joined for Friday night’s Yankees-Tigers game in Detroit by the retired Ernie Harwell, ever a delightful and welcoming legend.

Worse, for Brennaman, is his usual boothmate, Steve Lyons, a childish personality who has never attempted to live down his nickname, Psycho. Lyons is capable of an occasional insight. But he also made ignorant remarks two years ago about Shawn Green, who is Jewish, regarding why he did not play for the Dodgers on Yom Kippur. Fox suspended Lyons briefly.

In their years together, Lyons and Brennaman have shown no growth as a team. And Fox has yet to show a desire to find a better backup duo for McCarver and Joe Buck. Once upon a time in the 1980’s at NBC, Bob Costas and Tony Kubek backed up the No. 1 team of Scully and Joe Garagiola.

All of which leads to the regrettable incident last Thursday during Game 2 of the Dodgers-Mets playoff series at Shea Stadium. Brennaman and Lyons bonded like spitballing 13-year-olds in a middle school lunchroom to mock a Mets fan who was wearing an unusual-looking device over his eyes to help his poor vision. Stephen Teitelbaum, blind except for peripheral vision in one eye, was wearing a Jordy, a magnifying device, to help him watch the game.

Brennaman and Lyons could not know those details when the camera found Teitelbaum, but they could see that he was not goofing with a child’s toy. Still, they pursued him as if he were the class weakling. What was he wearing, they wondered?

“A Psycho-meter,” Brennaman said, to welcome Lyons to town.

“Maybe he’s in virtual reality,” Lyons said. If he is, Lyons explained, “he should stay there.”

And maybe, Lyons suggested, the Dodgers should don the contraptions to better hit Tom Glavine. Lyons then hit on the most logical puerile explanation: “He’s got a digital camera stuck to his face.”

This insensitive nonsense went on for 53 seconds while Marlon Anderson batted, offering a window into stunted imaginations. But it also underscored the failure by anyone at Fox to tell them to let up. Fox could have dispatched someone to Teitelbaum’s seat to report back on his condition. Instead, Teitelbaum’s family called Fox on Friday, leading to Brennaman’s on-air mea culpa early in Game 3 Saturday from Los Angeles.

This, then, is the second-best team Fox has to offer, the one that will call the American League Championship Series. Fox could do better by elevating Josh Lewin, who had a terrific game Saturday when the Tigers took their division series against the Yankees. Or Fox could show good sense by reaching out to SNY’s Gary Cohen to replace Brennaman.

But such a move seems unlikely. The Foxians love Brennaman enough to make him the voice of two Bowl Championship Series broadcasts, including the title game. Maybe his huge, unrestrained voice will be more suitable for college bowl games.

•Lyons, who worked with Lewin in Detroit on Saturday, has mastered the art of the absolute statement but falters at factual precision. Alex Rodriguez had an “unbelievable” season, he said, but he clearly did not. Derek Jeter had his best year, he said, but his numbers were better in 1999.

As the Yankees succumbed to Detroit’s Jeremy Bonderman on Saturday, Lyons ignored mounting evidence that the Yankees’ potency was more the stuff of fantasy baseball than of postseason reality, to say they comprised “arguably the best offensive lineup that’s ever been produced.”

E-mail: sportsbiz@nytimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/sports/baseball/10sandomir.html?_r=1&ref=sports&oref=slogin

RedFanAlways1966
10-10-2006, 05:20 PM
On Fox, Sour Notes From a Pair of Veteran Voices

By RICHARD SANDOMIR

Wonder if this know-it-all goes by Dick? He should. :devil:

REDREAD
10-10-2006, 06:29 PM
Tell me this Redread. Why does it even matter?

I honestly don't understand what is so troubling to you about the concept of non-disclosure.

It doesn't matter anymore. I should've stopped days ago, as it was a waste of breath.

In case you are wondering, it bothers me because Marty could've simply told Marc that he is not at liberty to comment, that he can't speak for Thom, or has been instructed not to comment about possible announcers.
That's how you do a no comment.

A denial is actually a comment. I don't understand how a false statement can be rationalized as a "no comment", but I guess lies are tolerated by the majority of people, so public figures continue to get away with it.

Yachtzee
10-10-2006, 06:56 PM
A denial is actually a comment. I don't understand how a false statement can be rationalized as a "no comment"...

And sometimes, a "no comment" sounds more like a yes.

REDREAD
10-11-2006, 10:05 AM
And sometimes, a "no comment" sounds more like a yes.

Not if it's done right. I'm sure Marty is smart enough to frame it right.

All he had to say was "Marc, I'm sorry, but I'm not at liberty to discuss details of any possible candidates for the opening. I can't even confirm or deny that the Reds are talking to Thom". How would that be interpreted as a "yes"?

GMs do it all the time when they are talking about trade rumors.

Rationalizing that it's ok to lie because a "no comment" might be taken by some as a "yes" isn't right.

Chip R
10-11-2006, 10:17 AM
I wonder what this thread reminds me of? Oh, I just remembered.

http://www.scottberkun.com/images/40-1.jpg

registerthis
10-11-2006, 11:06 AM
I wonder what this thread reminds me of? Oh, I just remembered.

http://www.scottberkun.com/images/40-1.jpg

Oh, I'm sorry, I was looking for abuse...

RFS62
10-11-2006, 11:43 AM
Oh, I'm sorry, I was looking for abuse...

Um, yeah. That's over in the Peanut Gallery.

REDREAD
10-11-2006, 12:31 PM
I wonder what this thread reminds me of? Oh, I just remembered.



It kept you entertained enough to keep checking in.. :laugh:

RFS62
10-11-2006, 01:31 PM
It kept you entertained enough to keep checking in.. :laugh:



Don't you people have jobs?


http://www.billjerome.com/tedknight/pics/caddy2.jpg