The guy's so old he's not just cranky about that series of tubes known as the interweb, but he's against TV too.

How does he feel about sports radio? Is AM radio too newfangled for him as well?

Just random sequences of words, some of them forming sentences.

You know, mixed in with the grampa crankiness about bloggers and the ridiculous assertions (Halladay the best pitcher in the A.L. over the last few years? Hello? Santana? And he's hardly "alone" in defending the Alexander-Smoltz trade, widely viewed outside Detroit as a classic win-win, though I understand many Tigers fans have been frustrated with it, especially those too young to remember '87), he has a good point about the trade deadline being a festival of BS rumors irresponsibly reported by a press corps that seems to abandon all standards on this issue. It's not exactly war and peace, so big deal if you float a BS trade rumor, but still. The profession's supposed to have standards.

That said, reporting that such-and-such team has scouts watching so-and-so's start, that's reporting. There's nothing wrong with that.

His views on ESPN are right on. Criticizing the messenger (a staple of this site) rather than dealing with the merit of his argument only adds credence to his point of view.

he has a good point about the trade deadline being a festival of BS rumors irresponsibly reported by a press corps that seems to abandon all standards on this issue. It's not exactly war and peace, so big deal if you float a BS trade rumor, but still. The profession's supposed to have standards.

This is exactly right.

I'm significantly more disturbed by professional reporters violating the basic norms of their profession than by bloggers violating the basic norms of the journalistic profession, but the latter is pretty shitty, too.

How is it that sourcing simply goes out the window once trade discussions begin? It would be really fascinating to follow the deadline if reporters actually did their jobs - we might find out the actual discussions going on between and within front offices occasionally. There'd be a lot less volume, but the information we did receive would have actual value.

I don't think I get his beef about misinformation. He appears to have a problem with certain individuals and entities who, he believes, disseminate false rumors:

The quackery started with ESPN, that self-important worldwide leader in sports with its growing reputation for firing out false rumors.

But he doesn't list what specific false rumors he's talking about. If Green could point to specific stories, that would give (for instance) ESPN a chance to respond to these accusations. Then they could say, "I based my reporting of this rumor on discussions with X." Of course, ESPN wouldn't want to reveal exactly who X is (they want to keep their sources confidential), but at least they can say something like, "it was a high-ranking executive at an AL club," or some such thing. And, actually, isn't that what most media outlets do?

Are there actual false rumors being reported? It seems like, in many cases, they are just reporting things like "Detroit had scouts watching Baltimore." What's false about that?

Green's main problem is actually hidden in his reference to Ben Maller, "who pirates the items rumored daily in newspaper sports sections." As I've said before, I can understand why journalists like Green would be offended that someone can make money/a career out of simply collecting in one convenient place rumors published by various reporters around MLB. (For instance, the guy who runs mlbtraderumors.com now apparently works for or has a deal with CBS Sportsline.) It's actually a good point -- newspapers are going out of business, but they are the ones who do the reporting, not (for the most part) bloggers. Why doesn't Green just write a column about THAT?

Does sourcing go out the window at the trade deadline? I don't see any evidence that sourcing is important in sports journalism at any other time of the year either.

And this didn't start with ESPN. Gammons was doing this in the Globe for years before ESPN got into it.

Green's main problem is actually hidden in his reference to Ben Maller, "who pirates the items rumored daily in newspaper sports sections."

This is a valuable service, though. How many fans have the time and the wherewithal to check the New York Daily News and Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune and Denver Post and Los Angeles Times every day for trade rumors?

Meanwhile, I'm waiting to hear about the kind of gossip that isn't sloppy and irresponsible.

Det News: Green: Trade deadline gossip too often is sloppy, irresponsible

Darn you, Nawrocki!

How many fans have the time and the wherewithal to check the New York Daily News and Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune and Denver Post and Los Angeles Times every day for trade rumors?

Yea...who has time for that sorta sickness!

This is a valuable service, though. How many fans have the time and the wherewithal to check the New York Daily News and Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune and Denver Post and Los Angeles Times every day for trade rumors?

It is valuable, but it's hard to figure out how valuable it is compared to the writing itself. Let's say that I'm a reporter who has spent numerous hours over a number of years developing contacts with a number of MLB teams. I then use those contacts to write an article about a specific trade possibility. You link to my article on my website, which then gets a ton of hits and gets you a fair amount of money (and maybe even a full-time job).

What's more valuable, my writing the article or you linking to it in a central location?

I don't want to present myself as too pro-journalist, but I understand where they are coming from. And yes, writers and papers need to do a better job of figuring out how to convert their articles into revenue.

And this didn't start with ESPN. Gammons was doing this in the Globe for years before ESPN got into it.

It always seemed to me that Gammons threw a bunch of shite up against the wall, willfully allowing "club officials" to use him to disseminate propaganda and mis directs, and then every once in a while, a GM would throw him a bone and give him a "real" rumor just before a deal was officially announced so Gammo could break the story and maintain his "credibility". (The 1 in 12 the writer refers to) That may be an inaccurate assessment, but that has always been my feeling about his "reporting" on trade rumors. That said, I am entertained, and participate in mock trade evaluation discussions based on many of the rumors that are floated by Gammo, Robothal, and the rest. So I'm not making a character assessment here. I'm just saying everyone with half a brain knows he is full of it, and takes it with a grain of salt anyway.

What about Rosenthal's trade rumors? Some of them seem quite bizarre. I think Rosenthal is far more irresponsible than Gammons.

Rosenthal often breaks genuine news, has any Gammons trade rumour ever came to pass?

Gammons and Rosenthal have very different relationships with their respective websites. Gammons doesn't bust out a new article every time he hears a whisper of something. I doubt their records on rumors in terms of percentage that come to pass are very different. Just because Rosenthal pops up to say "Casey Blake just got traded to the Dodgers" doesn't make him a more accurate rumormonger.

Rosenthal's stock and trade is to mix a kernel of information (Team X scout is at a game of Team Y) with his opinion (Team Y should get rid of Player Z) and it becomes "Team X is looking to make a deal for Z. But there seems to be front office dissension."

It always seemed to me that Gammons threw a bunch of shite up against the wall, willfully allowing "club officials" to use him to disseminate propaganda and mis directs, and then every once in a while, a GM would throw him a bone and give him a "real" rumor just before a deal was officially announced so Gammo could break the story and maintain his "credibility". (The 1 in 12 the writer refers to) That may be an inaccurate assessment, but that has always been my feeling about his "reporting" on trade rumors.

I don't have a problem with this as long as the writer actually has sources, dishonest though they may be. At least it gives us an idea of what notions are being tossed around in the front offices, and which players are being discussed.

If a writer is just making stuff up like 100% of us are when we discuss potential theoretical trades, then it's not worth reading. I have no idea why Bill Simmons's fans still find his "These NBA players, who have no chance of being traded, could theoretically be traded for these other NBA players who also have no chance of being traded, according to the laws of mathematics" column entertaining.

I don't have a problem with this as long as the writer actually has sources, dishonest though they may be.

Some trade rumors are reporters reporting other reporters. Repeating the rumors somehow legitimizes them.