Nice job. Should be interesting.

All questions are private, or can we put them in this thread? (I realize there might be inappropriate questions in here, but often reading one good question gets me to think of another question I wouldn't have thought of otherwise).

My email settings delete all incoming mail with addresses that I don't authorize specifically. Which is why I never bother to post it anywhere.

So if I send something to the aforemention battersbox.ca address, will any response be from that address?

Without waiting for an answer to Pistol's question, I have one I'll post here -- it comes directly from an ongoing on-again, off-again heated discussion Gitz and I have had over at ESPN's boards and once here. Ironically, we pretty much agree, but since we both feel strongly about it, our discussion is heated anyway.

Speaking as a former journalist and current corporate communications flak, I know full well that sometimes the best stories can be cut when senior management doesn't buy in and other times, we're put in the position of having to do our best writing about something we just simply don't agree with.

How much does Star editoriral policy influence topic, theme, tone? How much does the ultimate goal -- to sell papers -- influence your own work? Can we assume that the occasional vitriole that has riled Boxers in the past is something of a minor "Howard Stern" approach to drawing new readers?

This is a discussion thread. All questions must be submitted by e-mail. Even Mick's excellent queries. If you want to post a copy here of something you asked, feel free. As with any other thread in Da Box, we'll respond to any offensive comments by deleting them ASAP. In fact, I will not hesitate to permanently ban the IP address of anyone who abuses this board. Don't expect a warning or a second chance. If there's an unprecedented level of anonymous grandstanding, we have the option of disabling all comments on this thread, but I hope that won't be necessary.

One reason Batter's Box has become a popular place for baseball fans is the generally civilized and intelligent level of discussion. I was once concerned that the signal-to-noise ratio would deteriorate as our audience grew, but I've been pleasantly surprised so far.

I agree with Craig; Baker and Griffin have paid our site a compliment by doing this. We may still disagree with some of the things they have written -- I've been one of the more vocal critics -- but they deserve the same respect they are showing us. As I suggested elsewhere, if you wouldn't ask them the question in person, it's probably inappropriate.

The interview will be conducted by e-mail early next week, and should be posted by next Thursday or Friday. Thanks to Geoff and Rich for stepping into Da Box.

So if I send something to the aforemention battersbox.ca address, will any response be from that address?

There will be no acknowledgements or automatic replies. I don't expect to have time, as it's often difficult enough to keep up with my "regular" e-mail correspondence.

It would be helpful if you put "Question for the Star" in the subject line; feel free to use "Question for Baker" or "Question for Griffin" if it's specific to just one of them.

I'm going to de-lurk now (I swear, I was reading before the J.P. interview got this site mentioned by nearly every sports outlet! I'm not a cheap bandwagon whore!), because this looks interesting. I'll throw my question in here, too, just 'cause:

How, and under what circumstances, do you justify the use of unnamed sources in sports reporting? In "real" reporting, the lines can be easier to define -- ie. somebody squealing on organized crime, where identifying him would endanger his life. But in sports writing, we constantly see unnamed sources, identified only by "scout", "executive" or "clubhouse source," and often these people are commenting on items like a player's attitude or quality of play. How do you give credibility to someone who is criticizing a player for being a bad influence in the clubhouse but is unwilling to stand by his own comments? If an anonymous source turns out to be wrong, or lying, he faces no accountability whatsoever; what guarantees do your readers have that 75% of anonymous commentary is completely fictional?

Also emailed, I'm posting my questions to help ferment others:

Question1:

In last week's interview with Da Box, JP Riccardi said that "a player’s makeup can be more important than his ability," and that he strongly considers character when he picks players. You've (especially you, Mr. Griffin) obviously been somewhat critical of JP's statistically-driven approach to the game, but what do you think of his approach to the Jays' character? Do you feel he's done a good job building a clubhouse, especially compared to the Mondesi-Wells era Ash Jays?

Question2:

Presumably, in spite of your saber-skepticism, you'd still use at least some performance metrics when you considered a player - Barry Bonds' insane number of HRs are relevant in addition to the fact that he's big, strong, and smart. Nobody disputes that there needs to be some balance. We tend to think that the right balance contains a lot of high-level analysis, and less scouting than is traditionally used. What do you think the right balance looks like?

Here are my questions:

Many Jays fans, (myself included, to the point where I no longer read the Star's sports section regularly), would characterize your columns as relentlessly (though not always) critical of JP Ricciardi's organization. In just the past few months, you have attacked the club's ethnic makeup, emphasis on performance-based player evaluation, preference for drafting college players, scouting personnel decisions, and unwillingness to enter 8-figure bidding wars for Japanese players, frequently unfairly in my view. My questions to you are:

1. Why are you so consistently critical of the Jays' approach, especially since Ricciardi and Billy Beane have already proven this system can develop a contending club on a modest budget?

2. What specifically do you propose the Jays do differently in order to succeed with the payroll limitations they have?

3. Does it bother you if the tone and substance of your work turns readers away from the Star's sports coverage?

Thanks for taking the time to chat with us.

Remember to get your questions in (through e-mail) by Monday afternoon, guys.

Thanks to everyone who has suggested a question so far. The deadline for submissions will be an hour after the end of today's game.

Among other things, I will be asking Baker what he thought of our reaction to his White Jays piece, and how he responded to the many critical letters and e-mails the Star received.

Griffin has been in the BB cross-hairs more often, so we could bring up a lot of previous articles, but I'm curious about his reaction to this post from last December. That was the thread where we discussed an organized letter-writing campaign to complain to the Star about biased coverage, but (perhaps in the holiday spirit of good will) we didn't follow up on the idea. If you are still doing research, there are links in a couple of my comments there to some of Griffin's more provocative columns prior to this season.