I have never been a fan so this just annoyed me more.
What about the rest of you?

   What I appreciated in the article was Slusser's comparison of Swisher's habits with that of Bobby Crosby. I think we would hate to see Swisher burn out later in the season due to extra-curricular activities. Getting chewed out by Macha/Beane can either inspire him to wise up or carouse even more. I hope for the former. Life appears so easy for Swisher right now. Let's hope he can look back upon these times in 10 years without any regrets.

Slus is out of the will! I really liked her passion for the A's, but this is BS. How could she not realize the tremendous fallout? With Loaiza and Saurerbeck on the roster, of course A's management is going to freakout over this. "Gee, I didn't mean to throw you under the bus Swish, it's the A's fault for over-reacting..."

...was unfortunate for Swish and the A's. Asking Slusser why she wrote it now (when he's playing so well) is stupid. Who cares if he's playing well. Why should Slusser wait? The real reason they're pissed is because it came right after the Loaiza thing. And that's why there was an over-reaction by Beane and Macha. I find it hard to believe they would scold him now for his late nights and such. It had to be that they were annoyed that he was so open with Slusser.

While I do agree with susan on the timing of the article, ie if he was in a sophomore slump we would be more incline to take the article serious, but it saddens me that this could change swishers approach to fans and media. I love the fact that he's a regular guy who has enough personality for the whole team! it is a double standard that the a's look the other way for our new pitcher caught in the bushes with a mystery woman and DUI Loazia but we callout Swish for keeping his drinking under control. He's young and deserves to have fun. Until the day comes when he's driving 120 mph down 238 in his pickup truck or he slumps I'm fine with what he does off the field.

Thanks for doing this. Anyone know of an audio link to the conversation.

but I just now did and I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about.  Maybe someone that just skims the article might think that Swish is a big time party animal, but nowhere in the article is that said, or really even implied.

Does he like to have a good time?  Yes.  But is he out all the time or hung over at inappropriate times?  Both Swisher's quotes and Slusser's writing would seem to imply no.

The quote from Swisher that ends the article says:

That seems to me that both Swisher and Slusser are implying that Nick is not going to extremes, but is just being a normal healthy young man.  Again, just don't understand why anyone would get worked up over this article.  Seems stupid to get upset at Nick for having fun the right way just because some of our pitchers are idiots.

go through this at some point in their career? She gets paid by the Chronicle, not the A's. Her stories have been fair.  She didn't perform a hatchet job on Swisher. His character has been tarnished publicly but it's a difficult subject for any beat reporter to tackle as it places her in the position of being a "whistle blower". The fact that she told him ahead of time the content of the article implies that that Swisher didn't think through the consequences of the subject matter.

  Slusser doesn't strike me as one with national aspirations and that this article is her way creating more notoriety. What's interesting (and we'll never know) is to consider what Swisher may have told her that didn't get printed. As long as Swisher doesn't pull a "Loiaza" after going to the Lalapalooza, this will blow over after a couple of weeks.

has been scolded by Beane. Chavy still gets scolded for his comments. Swish talks so much that he should just get used to it.

Swisher may be unhappy that he got chewed out by A's management. And he may be upset or ticked at how the whole thing ended up. But we don't have any proof that he blames Slusser or is upset with her.

upset with the person who wrote it. that's the impression i got.

Personally, I found this article to be an interesting portrait of the life of a young ballplayer on the rise (particularly the story angles involving how vets like Kotsay and Kendall show him the ropes and play the mentor role).

As to the news value of this story, this is the type of profile piece most papers run following off-days. I'm glad there is stuff like this to read when there's no game to read about.

I read the article, and all it seemed like to me was that she used Swisher's notorious sociability and tendency to enjoy going "out and about" as a springboard to talk about the lines that young players tread as they learn to balance work and the young/wealthy party circuit.

It really doesn't seem like Swisher got reamed in the article at all... it seemed like Slusser used Swisher as more of a segue than anything else. If management jumped on him about it, then management is the issue, not the article.

Secondly, the story, at heart, is kind of stupid. "YOUNG TWENTY SOMETHING MUST LEARN TO NOT GET ALL F*D UP AND STAY OUT LATE AND NOT PERFORM TO POTENTIAL AT WORK." Umm. Yeah. Swisher, Crosby, and everyone else on this planet goes through this. Granted, they make bucketloads, and their (potential) shitty hungover games get televised, but it's not like its something relegated to baseball players. I spent plenty of work days in my twenties slumped over at my desk nursing a wicked hangover, and letting down my boss and everyone around me as I did it.  This is like having a piece talking about baseball players and how they have to manage dealing with unprotected sex, or jet lag, or gum disease.

"Nick Swisher loves candy! Just think what a toothache could do to his performance on the field! What a treacherous trap for a young player!"

Dumb.

portrayed badly? i also think that swisher knew exactly what the article was about. if he didn't want to participate in the article he shouldn't have given quotes.

Hey, where do the players usually hang out?  Walnut Creek?  SF?

I actually just read it (I'd only seen the vodka excerpt before), and I don't think it's that negative at all. If anything, it shows Swish as a conscientious guy who's just trying to feel his way through burgeoning stardom.

As anyone who's followed the A's for a while knows, this team has a rep for having lots of players who love to have fun. I think it's great of Slusser to write an article that explains how difficult it is for these guys to try and find a balance. Her example of Crosby was perfect.

Its interesting, because this particular group of guys (Swish, Crosby) are the same age as I am, and I don't have any single guy friends who don't go out, have a little fun, try and meet girls...
They don't necessarily let it affect their responsibilities. And these aren't athletes.

These players are human, they are not modicums of responsibility, and why should they be? I thought Slussers article really illustrated the difficulties in trying to be 25 and at the same time deal with the fun and drawbacks of having a little money and stardom.

Way to go, Sluss.

but she is a journalist and I think if she is upset that Nick is ticked at her then it's time for her to find a new job.  

The article was good as for the focus being Swish well that is only logical he is a hot commodity especially with the push to get him to the All-Star game.

I get the point she was trying to make and she was not calling out Swish but is this a wake up call to Swish?  Maybe.  Will he change? No, and that's okay as long as he understands that his image follows him and right now the 'party animal' tag is his. Did Swish think he was not going to be talked to about his behavior?  I think maybe Swish has been called to the office on more than one occassion and that is what he is more ticked about.  He had already been talked to and now this article and another meeting with Macha and Beane.

As for his teammates, they will probably all be more careful with the media especially Susan and that's too bad because as regular joe's I think we crave for the of how the other side lives (the athlete) and it allows us to better connect with them when we know that they enjoy some of the same things we do and that they are normal.

-- This seems like a classic example of the dichotomy between headline and story.  The headline and the first few grafs made it look like the story was going to be about Swisher's nightlife.  Instead, it was a somewhat meandering piece about players' struggles to balance postgame partying with their jobs, complete with talk of curfew violations and advice on how to fool coaches when curfew is shot to hell.  Swisher provides the lead anecdote because he's apparently known for his partying ways, and because he's the kind of player who will talk to a friendly reporter and cop to it.  He comes off a bit cavalier, but nothing more than that.

-- The A's, sensitive in the wake of the Loaiza arrest and Sauerbeck signing, didn't want to see this on the front page of the sports section.  It's a "negative" story, and therefore bad.  
Swisher, I gather, was upset because his bosses yelled at him.

-- I tend to look for agendas whenever beat reporters suddenly write an unusual article.  I don't think there is one here.  Macha was clearly willing to cooperate with quotes, so he may have wanted to send a message.  Beyond that, I have no reason not to take Slusser at her word.

-- I disagree with Blez on one point:  While it's not exactly shocking that young, millionaire athletes go out drinking, I think beat reporters like Slusser should be encouraged to take a harder look at the teams they cover.  It's not easy being a beat reporter, because you are trying to paint an honest picture of what's going on while maintaining relationships that are critical to doing your job.  

-- I can think of many examples, over the years, of times I would have rather reporters and columnists been more aggressive in covering the team.  Some examples:

1. The steroid rumors surrounding Canseco, McGwire, and Giambi.  Nobody would have liked reading about it, but I'm sorry, that was news.
2. Billy Beane's "Moneyball" techniques.  Did we really have to wait for the book?
3. Personal profiles that go beyond the superficial.  Why did I learn so much from Vin Scully about the A's on my trip to Los Angeles.  Somebody had done their homework.  It was fun to hear, and made for nice, "positive" vignettes.  Michael Lewis did some nice work in this regard in his "Moneyball" chapters about Scott Hatteberg and Chad Bradford.

The A's obviously got bent out of shape over a fairly innocuous article that nonetheless delved a little into a sensitive area.  I would rather that Slusser and other journalists be encouraged to do things like that.

Haven't seen this anywhere else...

Buried in a Sac Bee article about Zito's start last night was this single, completely out of place paragraph:

And not that the A's are swimming in adult beverages these days, what with the team charter and clubhouse going dry in the wake of a Bay Area newspaper article chronicling the purported night-owl ways of swashbuckling second-year star Nick Swisher.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/14272558p-15082858c.html

Interesting. A mini-protest by the team to support Swish? Front office dictate? Or much ado about nothing?

around a delicate subject.  An out-of-town writer or columnist might have noted, for example, that Swisher incurred Macha's wrath a few weeks ago because he didn't run out a ball that turned into a double play.  (I think that's what happened.  Someone correct me if I've got this one wrong.)

Swisher has had plenty of bad days at the plate recently.

I'm not saying that these things had anything to do with Swisher's nighttime habits.  But I think it is fair to say that Swisher sometimes loses focus, resulting in bad outcomes.

That doesn't undermine the fact that Swisher has been the team's most valuable player this year, and that he is a budding star.  But I think Slusser addressed that objection, saying she didn't want to pick on a guy when he was down.  Twentysomethings can bounce back from a night on the town a lot quicker than older folks.

But it sounds to me like some of the older players (Kotsay, for example) do have concerns about excessive carousing.  The manager has concerns.  Those concerns were expressed on the record.

Meanwhile, Billy Beane is acquiring players who are behaving irresponsibly at best (Loaiza) or who obviously have personal issues that involve alcohol (Sauerbeck).  

I understand your criticism of the dog-bites-man element of the story.  It's not exactly a shock to realize that rich, young major league baseball players go out on the town, et cetera.

But Slusser wasn't telling us we should be shocked, shocked that gambling is going on in Casablanca.  She was delving a bit into the culture of major league baseball and the balance - between fun and work - that many players try to strike.  That's a worthy effort.

Slusser also was writing her story while trying to avoid causing too many problems for anyone.  Personally, I think she should worry less about that.  But I certainly understand being upset if a cooperative source (Swisher) gets in trouble with his bosses over a story that was really pretty innocuous.  

last night after the game at San Diego bar with the Big Hurt.  Guess which one was talking and which one checking out the chicks.

... from an article on Swisher I just finished writing for ESPN Mag: "Who gives a fuck if he goes out all night?" asks Thomas. "He should; he's young, single and good-looking. As long as you come in, bust your ass and produce, nobody can say anything." ... Fascinating thread, by the way. Great discussion.

... this week or next. Not sure. It's a short one -- about the same length as the SI piece, but hopefully a little more "inside." Basically, it's about the veteran A's not wanting Nick to ever stop being Nick. ... And regarding the new "dry" policy in the clubhouse and charter plane, it was announced by Macha in a team meeting that one player called "very, very strange" before the first game in San Francisco, right after Macha got off the phone with Billy. Definitely an over-reaction to Susan's piece, with a side of "I can't drive 105" and Sauerbeck.