Talk:Kris Benson

Infamously?

Why is Benson's 2004 trade to the Mets considered infamous? He, and solid prospect Jeff Keppinger, were acquired for Ty Wiggington (a utility player of arguably equal value to Keppinger), Jose Bautista (an infielders who has yet to establish himself), and minor leaguer Matt Peterson. At worst, this trade was a wash.

Is the author confusing this trade with the Zambrano-Kazmir trade that occurred on the same day? The 2 trades were announced simultaneously by many media outlets, leading them to be grouped together in posterity. The Zambrano-Kazmire trade, as any Met fan knows, was a horribly inept move on face value. Dbn429 15:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If anything, Benson's trade should be considered fortuitous for the Mets, since they got John Maine, a future ace of the staff by dealing away Benson.

When one truly researches the above assumptions, one will find out that the Kris Benson trade didn't really work to the Mets advantages or disadvantages. Kris Benson pitches 200 innings between Pittsburgh and New York during the 2004 season, and 184 in 2005. John Maine pitched less innings in his first two years with the Mets compared to Benson's time in NY. Maine's innings have decreased yearly, and his ERA has slowly increased. It is also unfair to compare the two pitchers wins and loses, since Benson threw for the Mets when they were a totally different team. During the 2004 season when Benson arrived, the Mets finished 71-91, whereas Maine's first season produced a 97-65 team record. Both pitchers have had shoulder injuries as well. Therefore, all the reporters bashing on Benson once he left, has no merit when one researches the facts.

Once again, it was the shoddy reporting by New York sports reporters that started the false comparison, and subsequent following of other reporters and their "copying" of New York media gossip.----Anonymous (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2010.

Anna Benson

As the quote continually removed by the anonymous user makes clear, the SI comment regarding the Bensons is a evaluation, in part, of her strong presence in the public's perception of his career. Mrs. Benson certainly maintained an oft noted part of her husband's relationship with franchises and fan bases. The quote's point is that his wife's comments and actions often overshadowed his own career, clearly a germane contention for an article on Kris Benson. --Vaudedoc (talk) 07:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC).

However, that's simply an opinion of those that cannot separate one persons lifestyle and their significant others lifestyle; therefore, making the two seem connected. Anna Benson's media dealings really have nothing to do with her husbands career, since she has never taken the field and played baseball, but it makes for a dramatic story line in an otherwise long season. Speaking of baseball on a daily basis gets a little monotonous, so reporters that are always looking to "spice" things up. This can make things look much more dramatic than things really are, and the New York media is definitely well known for that. Once again, this is another opinion based on this circumstance, just like the one made above and in all media outlets on this subject. Point is, Mrs. Benson's comments or career has nothing to do with her husband's career, but certain people like to think that. Since Vaudedoc thinks this is essential to Kris Benson's personal page, the post will continually be taken down when it is reposted, no matter how many times Vaudedoc thinks it is significant to the big picture.----Anonymous (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2010.

First, I welcome the anonymous editor to actually establish or use a Wikipedia identity so that the community can get a better sense of his/her interests here and editing history. I say this because the only removals of this post are from anonymous users--quite likely a single user, one could conjecture.

As to his/her primary point--that mention of Anna Benson should not appear because it is our duty to "separate" their lives--Sports Illustrated, arguably the best-known general magazine for American sport, saw fit to include mention of his wife in even the briefest biographical mention of Kris Benson, certainly evidence of its notability in discussing his career. The comment that the anonymous user(s) continually reverts, in fact, is precisely tied to Benson's career: her "antics" (quoting from SI) have overshadowed and interacted with his career. Certainly, her comments and behavior while he was with the Mets played a great part in the public's digestion of Kris Benson's presence on the team. The anonymous editor(s) may think that this Anna Benson's antics have "nothing to do with her husband's career," but Sports Illustrated begs to differ--it feels his time in the majors was "overshadowed" by his wife's behavior in a major media market. We have therefore a creditable source for inclusion in this article.

Finally, the point of a biographical entry is to address the entirety of a subject's life: personal, career, educational, etc. Speaking of issues other than baseball in an entry on Kris Benson is not an attempt to, as the anonymous editor accuses some sports reporters of, trying to "spice up" an account; it's responsibly addressing a life in whole. The section that keeps getting deleted doesn't try to drag the Kris Benson page over to a lurid accounting of his wife's behavior and comments. Indeed, it makes only brief mention that the pitcher is married to a controversial figure, and does so in the context of his career. For fuller mention of Anna Benson's exact exploits, certainly, one can and should look to her own page. For these reasons, I'm restoring the text. --Vaudedoc (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

As mlb.com has numerous "reporters" that post their opinions on players and their careers, so does Sports Illustrated. Just because a certain writer thought it was fun to write about Anna Benson in an piece about Kris Benson, makes the exact point that it is simply a game to include her to make their piece look a little less boring. I do not see this as reporting anything or have any relevance towards Kris Benson, and it is still nothing but an opinion that has been passed around to make certain reporters look "clever" in their pieces. Kris Benson has been a professional baseball player for 14 years, only a year and half in New York City (when this was written). I don't think the New York gossip media's portrayal of Anna Benson has anything to do with the "overshadowing" of Kris Benson's career, and it was something started by one reporter and picked up and passed around because it was "cool" to write or copy. Therefore, the point that continually is made by Vlaudidoc is nothing more than sensationalist reporting, and it's merits are unimportant to his personal page, and career in general. Ultimately, this entire debate only shows the insecurity of certain reporters, that they can not stick to the task at hand, which is to write about baseball. Therefore, just because it showed up in SI, doesn't make this anymore "credible" than a gossip write up in the NY Post, that's also considered a legit publishing to some. The Post is the one that most likely started the entire storyline, and SI, and it's reporter that the quote is "based" on, is just another reporter that followed the bandwagon of gossip journalism. If that's the case, there could probably be many different quotes that make Anna Benson seem to overshadow Kris Benson's career, but as a whole, it doesn't at all.----Anonymous (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2010.

Anonymous, this is only your opinion that everyone on Wikipedia should ignore this material. Publications simply reporting that Anna Benson threatened to sleep with the entire roster of the Mets if her husband cheated on her or that she accused her husband's GM of trying to expel white players from the organization is not sensationalistic journalism--it's accurately reporting that the spouse of a member of the team is interacting with her husband's career and the public's perception of the team. You say you don't agree with SI's evaluation of her impact and that you question their motives for writing it. That's fine. But your opinions don't get included in Kris Benson's entry; valid, reliable, cited sources do. The reporters didn't include her in his career, she did by speaking about the team, the roster, the management, etc. The job of a sports reporter, after all, is not just to write about what happens on the field, but to address all matters that impact the game, be it marketing, management, budget, facilities, fans, etc. Spouses also fall into this category. (Should the reporters covering the Master's not have noted the importance of Amy Mickelson's battle against cancer to her husband's win?) You find the reporters who saw fit to address this involvement in his career "insecure"? Again, fine, but hardly a justification to scrub Kris Benson's page of valid, cited sources. If you don't like such reporting, don't read those papers or magazines. But Sports Illustrated, cited on thousands of Wikipedia's articles, is clearly a reputable source for an adjudication of Anna Benson's interactions with her husband's career. If you have a source beyond your own opinion arguing that mention of Anna Benson vis a vis her husband's career was motivated by animus, sloth, or insecurity, feel free to cite it in the body of the article as an alternate viewpoint. Vaudedoc (talk) 07:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Since Vlaudidoc seems to have all the answers and speaks for the Wikipedia world ("everyone on Wikipedia"), how can anyone disagree? I do. Once again, you keep citing Anna Benson stories. You speak of the "threatened to sleep with the entire team" as if you really believed it. If you don't recall, from my "research", I believe she was on Howard Stern when she said that. It's a nice place to be sensational, just like the New York media in general. So continue to "site" away and justify your inner desire to post the quotation facts. More I think about it, you must be a sports reporter since you say "the job of a sports reporter is...". Who would give Anna Benson SO much energy in a platform like this? By the way, the reporter(s) did try to include her, because they asked her questions. As far as Mickelson's wife, she had BREAST CANCER. A little different. A little more impacting. Yes, a reporter that has to drag a players wife into the mix by asking her questions in a negative way are insecure in their reporting and professional skills. Long story short, no I don't believe that spouses fit into "this category". It's just excited little reporters getting a chance to speak to a fantasy they'll never obtain and trying to make it relevant. You see it all over TV, in all areas of the reporting world. Bad reporting, and sports reporters may be the worse. But that's a different topic for a different day. We only hope to be as "sited" by the media, so we can have our very own Wikipedia page, and people really care to read it. By the way, you sound so passionate. It's almost as if you're obsessed with Anna Benson as well. You know so much about her past. You've spent so much time justifying your hard work. Me, I just hit erase. It's like her quotes happened yesterday, not 6 years ago. Either way, I think we're going to agree to disagree, so why bother going back and forth. You keep putting the hard sought after "irrelevant research" that you've done on Anna Benson on Kris Benson's page, and Anonymous will continue to take it off of "Kris Benson's page". My opinions don't get included on the main page, but I have the power to "uninclude" yours. You do your duty and make the "Wkipedia world" a better place though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.177.61.148 (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I love the sweet taste of debating victory. Did I strike a nerve? Now you're spending more time trying to prove your posting worth just to try and get your poor points across. I still have a delete button, and you have too much time on your hands Vlaudidoc.----Anonymous (talk) 1:56, 16 April 2010.

Your point being what? That I invested time and energy in listening to and addressing points you raised (despite your obstructionist tendencies of instant reversion and promise to do nothing but more of the same), developed the various sections, found new sources, and yet you once again instantly reverted the new material for no reason whatsoever? Still anonymously? If you're not here to constructively aid in the ongoing development of the entry why are you taking part in WP? Why remain unregistered?

You're right: it will always be easier for you to mock other editors and instantly revert than it will be for us to put time into writing and researching, and patience and respect into our relationship with you. For the record, it doesn't matter what my profession is (I only wish it were a sports journalist--who wouldn't want the free tickets?) or why I care that articles such as this receive proper attention, but that I'm writing within the guidelines of WP and am trying to develop the article towards a fuller understanding of Benson's life and career. You didn't like mentioning Anna Benson in an article on her husband because you felt it had nothing to do with his career. Wrong though I believe your position was, I nevertheless wrote new material that 1) included quotes from the pitcher himself contending that her public presence was, to his mind, responsible for him being traded; and B) fleshed out his personal life by noting a filing for divorce. Are you actually arguing that something that Kris Benson feels caused his move to Baltimore doesn't belong in the career section? That his marriage should be mentioned in the personal section but not a divorce filing? For what possible reason? ("Cite," by the way, is a truncation of "citation.") --Vaudedoc (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Time to rally the Wikipedia world troops Vlaudidoc. It's like a little baby crying to mommy. How funny! You say you write within the guidelines of the WP, and I'll continue to delete within my right as well. Hope you continue to get alerts that your writing has been altered, tomorrow, a week, or a month from now. Whenever I have time to pop in and see an opening. Just in case you want to get specific on letter A, it never says which Benson talked about the quote they talk about. It could go either way, so your assumption is just that without a "Kris Benson said". If you say this quote, it could hold true for either party. If you want to be true to your calling, I guess you'd have to take this down. As far as the filing for divorce, you can put it up there now that you're trying to prove a point about your posting professionalism. Just let your boyfriends know Anonymous said don't waste their time either. It won't be locked forever. If anything, it shows how similar Vlaudidoc is to the countless insecure sports reporters that have to prove their points when it comes to Anna Benson. Now the site has become even more Anna-oriented due to Vladork's obvious obsession with her.----Anonymous (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2010.

"Vandalism"--whoops!

Sorry about the reference to vandalism in my last edit summary. I misunderstood the previous anonymous editor's reference, and was trying to say that it WASN'T, not that it WAS. ThtrWrtr 16:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patchyreynolds (talk • contribs)

January 2009 edits

All of the recent edits are uncited and quite a few are PoV. Any one have sources for any of this? Or should it be reverted? ThtrWrtr (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've poked about and can'r find sources for much of the information (e.g., being one of only two freshmen to make his HS team)) that was recently added. Unless some cites appear I'm going to start taking uncited info down as per BLP. ThtrWrtr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC).

High school references

I removed some otherwise useful data (and some PoV material) because I couldn't find any sources for it. Anyone know of anything online for this? ThtrWrtr (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kris Benson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110708211933/http://clemsontigers.cstv.com/sports/m-basebl/spec-rel/060500aaa.html to http://clemsontigers.cstv.com/sports/m-basebl/spec-rel/060500aaa.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)