Thanks for the responses, Kevin. Some good advice and commentary. I’ll be more circumspect with my assertions about the media and try to do a bit of research before I post my offhand assumptions.

Since you’ve had an inside look at the media and how things function, I would be interested to hear more about your cynicism. I’ve lived abroad for the past ten years in a society where media portrayal of events — what they choose to report (and not report) and how they report it — has and has had dire implications for society as a whole. The U.S., with its hetergeneous population, may be less susceptible to disproportionate media influence, but recent political events (perhaps in the sports world not so much), irrespective of ones political persuasion, suggest otherwise.

Anyway, thanks again for the interesting commentary and your civility.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

Now whether the team would be as good or better next year, that is what the off-season for.

The way the Padres has been going since moving to Petco Park, I fully expect the team to get better next year and contending for the playoff. World Series might even be in the book depending on how the luck turns out.

After all this is baseball, where the best team fails almost half the time and the best hitters are only succesful 33% of the time.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

“Good reporting? Fair? As long as someone prints it, everyone else can?”

You raise a good point that this may not be the best or most fair way of doing it. The New York Daily News is a reputable source, so other sources didn’t feel squemish about citing them. And it’s certainly possible the writer or the source was out to lunch. I just recoiled at the theory that all writers and their sources are out to lunch.

It would be interesting to do a study of this, but my guess is 95 percent of the time when I story uses “sources” or when a headline says “report,” the story turns out to be true — and ususally very soon after.

The Torre story falls into the 5 percent category. The Daily News writer is saying one of two things right now: 1. Darn, I thought I had that story right. I trusted my source. Darn me for missing it. Or 2. I am 99 percent confident my story is still correct, and Steinbrenner simply made an about face, after thinking and talking to Cashman, etc.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

#39: To clarify, and in line with #45 and 46, I’ll be happy if we keep making the playoffs. When I say that I fully expect the Padres to reach the WS within the next two years, it’s a confirmation that I think this organization is well on its way to transforming itself into a championship caliber ballclub. In other words, if the Pads were to reach the NLCS in 2007 or 2008 but lose, I wouldn’t neccesarily go sour on the current regime.

#44: No worries; as long as we keep it respectful (which we are), there’s potentially something to be gained from this discussion. I’m particularly interested to hear Kevin’s views from the inside.

Overall, I think the discussions we’re having now are good ones to be having as fans. It’s much better, IMO, to be debating the relative merits of a front office that has reached the playoffs in consecutive seasons than one that is trying to figure out how to avoid 90+ losses next year. I say it all the time, and I’ll say it again: Give me this over 1999 - 2003 any day of the week. And actually, now that I think about it, give me these last three years over any three consecutive years in club history. We’re on the right track here.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

Fair enough. Your answer would be #2. So if Bochy and Towers were let go and the Pads failed to “reach the playoffs” over the next years, what do you feel (complete speculation, of course) your opinion would be?

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)