Letters

LETTERS

March 09, 2003

Don't like lacrosse? Move to another state

In response to the letter of March 2 titled "Lacrosse not worthy of excessive coverage," please advise the writer of a few facts.

The "four-state area" is quite interested in lacrosse, as it holds all the college lacrosse championships. With the introduction of lacrosse at the Division I level in many other areas of the United States, hopefully, The Sun will not be the only paper to carry articles about lacrosse.

It should be suggested to the writer that he should move to Iowa in wrestling season and Florida or California for the baseball season.

It should also be suggested that he never move to Alaska, because there is a good chance he is not going to like the skiing and dog sled articles.

Chuck Bowers Carney

Lacrosse is deserving of the coverage it gets

It is a shame that a resident of Maryland does not realize that he lives in the hotbed of lacrosse. When a 50-mile radius is home to five of the top 15 teams in a collegiate sport, I believe this warrants coverage.

For the record, last Sunday's paper devoted a half-page out of 18 pages of the Sports section to college lacrosse. Is that excessive?

Complaining about too much lacrosse coverage in The Sun is like complaining about too much college football coverage in the South Bend, Ind., paper.

When a particular sport is the common thread of a state's population, why not cover it as much as possible?

Eric Vanags Towson

Lacrosse is better than college baseball

I am perplexed that a person would write a letter and complain about college lacrosse coverage.

I played lacrosse, football, baseball, wrestling and track and field from second grade into my teens. Lacrosse, I would say, was the most exciting and least political sport I played.

As for college baseball, who cares? Nobody can even give away Orioles tickets, let alone care about college baseball.

I think it is wonderful that The Sun reports on college and pro lacrosse. It's a great game.

Tom Walters Millers

Covering lacrosse hardly a bad thing

In response to the letter about lacrosse coverage, I wish to wholeheartedly disagree with the writer's request that The Sun cut back on the space devoted to lacrosse, and I enthusiastically endorse the outstanding high school and college coverage your paper traditionally provides its readers.

Yes, lacrosse is a regional sport - though that is changing yearly as the sport rapidly expands around the country.

Yes, the interest is greatest (nationally speaking) in this part of the country. But who says that is a bad thing, or that The Sun should provide less coverage because of the sport's strong regional appeal?

As I understand it, The Sun's readership base is overwhelmingly made up of people from the Baltimore metropolitan area. It should, therefore, cater to that audience and its interests.

Jamey Hebb Baltimore

With new leaders, O's due for better days

To all of those who have not yet noticed the faint light of a new dawn peeking over the Orioles' horizon, take anther look.

There is no denying the dismal state to which the team has fallen over the past five years, but it is not as a result of bad luck or a miserly owner.

It is due to the lack of a coherent organizational plan and the personnel to carry it out.

This is no longer the case. The additions of Mike Flanagan and Jim Beattie to positions of authority are the first steps on the road back.

These are knowledgeable, experienced baseball men who know that a team is not built through the acquisition of expensive fading "names" with diminishing skills, but rather through a quality farm system stocked with prospects who have time to mature before they are exposed to the bigs.

The defection of Rochester, our Triple-A team for decades, says all you have to know about the recent condition of our minor-league teams.

The turnaround has begun.

The Orioles will have a better record this year than last, and an even better record in 2004.

Be prepared, Orioles fans, the renaissance has begun.

Sig Seidenman Owings Mills

Forget vets; O's should give the kids a chance

As one of the "Larry Bigbie fans" Laura Vecsey refers to in her column of last Tuesday titled, "To put it bluntly, O's need Surhoff," I must respectfully disagree with her premise that the Orioles are better off playing the 38-year-old Surhoff than young players like Bigbie.

Granted, contending teams like Atlanta and Seattle coveted Surhoff in 2000 and may still, but for these teams, he represents a piece of a puzzle that is already largely in place.

By contrast, the Orioles are nowhere near contending in the tough AL East. Unless they decide to go back to the free-spending ways of the 1990s, they must develop young talent at the major-league level, much as teams like Oakland and Minnesota have done.

Players like Miguel Tejada, Torii Hunter and Jacque Jones were far from finished products when they began their big-league careers and struggled early on, in some cases for several seasons, but have since developed into stars.

One cannot ultimately learn to hit major-league pitching playing at Triple-A. Why not give the kids a real chance?

Mark Haas Timonium

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.