In Boston this week for Microsoft TechEd (and to catch a couple Red Sox games of course which I'll be writing about in the coming week). A couple interesting things:
I did though think the answers the Glasses gave were within the realm of possibility as far as leaving Baird to twist in the wind. Mr. Glass said they spent the first couple weeks trying to figure out who they could trade, who they could acquire, and the state of the minor league system, etc. before deciding apparently that the problems ran so deep that the only alternative was to fire Baird. One would hope that finding they could do little to nothing in the short term they didn't make Baird the scape goat in the wake of their announcement that something has to be done. But then again you certainly can't argue that Baird has done a good job and so the end seems justified. And just to show that I don't think everything Jason Whitlock writes is bad, I enjoyed this column.
The larger question though is how teams and the media interact. Because teams control access they have the potential to effectively censor what is written and said through that mechanism. The danger is that you end up with are beat reporters that do nothing more than act as mouthpieces for the team. And while the game could certainly use all the positive publicity it can get, obtaining it in that heavy-handed manner is not the way to do it. It seems to me this is especially an issue in professional sports where communities often have an investment in team via their facilities and therefore full disclosure is necessary.