Hang with me while I babble on about a few things.
*Interesting item in Post story by Zach Berman (another INTERN!) today: Unprompted, Flores tried to bunt Milledge to third -- a play that could either be interpreted as selfless or foolish, considering Flores leads the Nationals in RBI with 52.
No "or" needed. It was both. I love Flo (duh) and love that he was thinking hard about getting Milledge to third. But it was indeed foolish. He had two hits, both of them solid. I'd rather he go up there thinking, "Bring that jank, I'm going to hit a couple of guys in your bullpen on the head." Or, "Hey you in the Red Porch, look out." Or, "Let's put this one in the gap." He's a run producer. He needs to start thinking like one.
*If reports of Crow asking for $8-10 million and a major league contract are true, F him. Have a fine senior season at Mizzou and I hope you don't get hurt. I also don't like that he may have turned down invitations to Nationals Park. Why? It is a common courtesy for you to be invited and a common courtesy for you to attend. Granted, all this is probably an agent's doing and not the kid's but it does reflect on the kid and not well. I'd love to see him in Washington with his ability but I'm also not big on prima donnas. Make him a bottom line offer. If he doesn't take it, the new GM will enjoy having two of the top 10 picks.
*JimBow took some shots at unnamed sources in the Nationals Journal done by The Intern last night, immediately leading the skeptic in me to believe JimBow may have been one of the sources.
Unnamed sources are a hot topic still for me. I have no idea what the Post's rules are about them. We had some very stringent rules. For instance, the GM or athletic director or coach is often a source. We were not allowed to say said person was not available for comment and then quote that person anonymously. You can't say Bowden, for example, wasn't available when you are quoting him. He WAS available. He just didn't want his name used.
We also had to have two sources saying something, not just one. We weren't supposed to agree to not use the name unless termination or death was a possibility.
We were pretty good about following those rules. Sometimes, if it was really important to get something in, we'd bend them a bit.
They should be used VERY sparingly and should be treated with a skeptical eye by the reader.
A couple of quick "anonymous" stories.
I am reluctant to say anything negative about my old paper. I love the paper, love the people there. It was a very good job for a long time. I honestly believe the paper is doing its best to stay viable in an age where a newspaper is a relic. I hope with all my heart it succeeds.
Last night on the paper's Web site, they had an item about the latest teen-aged NASCAR hot shot maybe making his Cup debut in Richmond. It said, "according to a variety of Internet blog sites."
Love it. My new goal in life is to get some mainstream publication to write, "NationalsFanboyLooser.com is reporting ***" Hmmmm. Maybe us Nats bloggers can band together. I'll write that JimBow has been fired. Everyone else can do the same thing and maybe we'll see "Numerous blog sites are reporting ****"
One more and then I'll shut up (for now): Years ago, I'm working a story about William and Mary football coach Jimmye Laycock flirting with a job at Boston College. The WM football secretary finds me and says, "You have a phone call."
It was a reporter from the Boston Globe. We chatted for a while about the situation.
The next day's Globe quotes "a source inside the William and Mary football office." I'm thinking, this guy has never been to W&M. How does he have sources there? Then I read it again. He's quoted ME. And, yes, I was INSIDE THE WILLIAM AND MARY FOOTBALL OFFICE when we talked. Yeesh.
Bottom line, coming from a former journalist: Anonymous sources are best avoided.