I like having no editors. Most of them, I have found, have been useless, if not downright incompetent.

Yeah, it's great that Murray gets to now publish pointless ad-hominem nonsense like his mini-tirade against the Tampa Bay FO without someone useless & incompetent telling him that writing such stuff makes him look like a complete buffoon.

"On successive nights last week David Price of the Rays and Joba Chamberlain of the Yankees demonstrated how much is lacking in their development."

"Longoria’s delayed arrival didn’t hurt the Rays last season, but you have to wonder where they would be this season if Price had been in their staring rotation from the start of the season instead of joining them seven weeks into the season."

Does anyone else see a contradiction in these two quotations from Chass? Unless of course he is implying that the Rays would be worse off had Price started the year in the majors, a reasonable viewpoint but one I doubt he is suggesting.

It’s [Hoffman's] entire mental approach that prepares him for games,” Melvin said. “In the bullpen he has a routine. He prepares for it like a business person prepares for a major board meeting."

Why are they so vague about the form this preparation takes? RTA, and it's not entirely clear what Hoffman is doing in terms of 'preparation'. I think we should be told!

I seldom explain in a message why I am calling, I used to do that, but I found that if the person I was calling didn’t want to be asked about the subject, he didn’t call so I decided it was better not to alert the person in advance why I was calling.

See - no basement blogger would have worked that one out. It takes newsroom experience!

So, a GM is supposed to return phone calls from bloggers?

So, a GM is supposed to return phone calls from bloggers?

Of course not. But if he cares about the blogger writing "did not return my phone call" then perhaps he should. But I don't see why the GM would care about this.

One of the things I like about writing for this Web site is I don’t have editors. I like having no editors. Most of them, I have found, have been useless, if not downright incompetent.

I've worked with editors on some of my THT pieces and have been happy with the process. I think they made the articles better than they otherwise would have been. But for a guy like Chass, I can see it being pointless, he probably knows a lot more about writing than whoever a paper or website can find to edit him.

I kind of like what he's doing here. The Rays are manipulating service, everybody knows it, yet they can't come out and admit to it. It's not a good situation, and hopefully bringing attention to it can eventually lead to an improved system.

And Chass didn't even bring up Upton and Shields, either.

Vaughn said I was unfair and unethical in the way I called Friedman and portrayed the absence of a return call. He noted that I called Friedman the day before the draft. How in the world could I expect to get the general manager the day before the draft, Vaughn asked, suggesting that the timing of the column was bad and that I should have waited to write it another time when it would have been more convenient for Friedman to call back.

Now Vaughn was not only acting as the Rays’ vice president for communications, but he was also acting as my editor. One of the things I like about writing for this Web site is I don’t have editors. I like having no editors. Most of them, I have found, have been useless, if not downright incompetent.

I love the way Chass considers his article to be of such vital importance -- and of such urgency -- that Friedman should have been interrupted from draft preparations to take his call.

And Chass didn't even bring up Upton and Shields, either.

Neither did Tampa Bay, right away.

I don't return Murray's calls either.

even Whitey Herzog wouldn't listen if he called

I don't return Murray's calls either.

He didn't return the e-mail I once sent him.

He directed Rick Vaughn, the team’s vice president for communications, to call and tell me.

This sort of thing sounds pedantic, but my company (for instance) has an iron-clad "only Communications folk may talk to the media" for a lot of instances. If Friedman's hands were tied from above, I have no real issue with pushing this phone conversation off to someone else.

Umpire: [after hitting Coleman] You're out of here rookie.
Rick Vaughn: I'm out?
Umpire: Yes you are!
Rick Vaughn: Hey, c'mon. That's an accident!
Umpire: You threw at him intentionally!
Rick Vaughn: Oh, kiss my ass!
Umpire: You're gone.
Rick Vaughn: You're full of ####! #### you!
Umpire: Get outta here rookie.
Rick Vaughn: Oh! Why don't you blow me ump!

I can't criticize the Rays - the Wild Thing richly deserves this sinecure he's been offered. Obviously Friedman was just giving him something to keep him occupied.

This sort of thing sounds pedantic, but my company (for instance) has an iron-clad "only Communications folk may talk to the media" for a lot of instances.

It's because they are PEOPLE PERSONS! THEY ARE GOOD DEALING WITH PEOPLE! CAN'T YOU PEOPLE SEE THAT?

Why are they so vague about the form this preparation takes? RTA, and it's not entirely clear what Hoffman is doing in terms of 'preparation'. I think we should be told!

Possibly because Tom Haudricourt had an article out Saturday about exactly that?

I can't believe the thread has gotten this far without anyone pointing out that only an editor saved Chass from embarrassing himself by putting his backne revelations in the Times.

It has been my experience that good writers are always happy to work with editors. It's the bad writers who have a problem with it.

It has been my experience that good writers are always happy to work with editors. It's the bad writers who have a problem with it.

Didn't Bill James prefer to work without an editorial net?

It has been my experience that good writers are always happy to work with editors. It's the bad writers who have a problem with it.

Absolutely. For Maury to hold his position after so many years is quite damning, as far as I'm concerned.

An editor would have caught "Maury."

I'm no Chass fan, but the criticism in this case doesn't make sense to me, and feels like the obligatory "Here's a post by Murray Chass so open can insert generic snark."

As AROM wrote, the Rays are clearly gaming the system. They may be smart to do so, but Chass is right in this case to call it what it is. They didn't talk to him. Fine, that's their right. But to call and whine after the fact that he wrote they didn't call back is petty and foolish.

The snark here about Chass thinking his blog posts are so important doesn't make sense. The complaint from the Rays shows that his posts are important to them (I don't know why but that's a different question.)

More than anything about Chass, this seems to me to illustrate the expectations that the Rays had for journalists. That even if the Rays don't defend themselves, the journalists to be objective insert a balancing defense of the Rays' behavior, even if the journalist thinks such a defense is ridiculous. That way the Rays get their side out without subjecting themselves to questions. They're smart to pursue that strategy, but I for one am glad Chass didn't live up to his end of the "bargain." A crank may yell about the kids in the yard and the buzz of planes overhead, but every once in a while a crank may say something on point.

Didn't Bill James prefer to work without an editorial net?

He did, often to his detriment if the Bill James bio was to be believed. Weren't they stories to the effect that Bill would spell a name one way on one page and then differently on another and argue with the editor when they tried to impose uniformity?

I recall a few mentos in the Abstracts like referring to the Phillies as phutile or phlopping. There were also a few inside jokes that editors probably wouldn't understand. However, James used these as seasoning instead of as the main course; like some in the sabrsphere.

James had a problem with copy editors who didn't know baseball names, leaving his books with references to people like "Larry Bows." But he always had kind words for his chief editor, Peter Gethers.

It has been my experience that good writers are always happy to work with editors. It's the bad writers who have a problem with it.

I was originally going to make a similar claim, tho in a more profane & classless fashion.

One of the things I like about writing for this Web site is I don’t have editors.

Does he really not call it a blog?

Maury doesn't write a blog! It's not a blog! Stop calling it that!

Does he really not call it a blog?

This is a site for baseball columns, not for baseball blogs. The proprietor of the site is not a fan of blogs. He made that abundantly clear on a radio show with Charley Steiner when Steiner asked him what he thought of blogs and he replied, “I hate blogs.” He later heartily applauded Buzz Bissinger when the best-selling author denounced bloggers on a Bob Costas HBO show.

His mom would be 105 were she alive. He can't live in her basement. That said, the site is missing some stuff that would make it bloggy. There's no blogroll. No hyperlinks or hat tips to Tracy Ringolsby. Too, AFAICT, he doesn't make pop culture references, either.

If it scrolls like a blog, and it snarks like a blog...

If it was a blog, wouldn't his posts be more of a dialogue than a monologue? Plus, I'd expect an occasional post about him taking his wife to Peter Luger's and running into Henry Kissinger, followed by a rant about the Nixon Administration.

As AROM wrote, the Rays are clearly gaming the system.

I don't believe it, but let's for the moment assume that it is true that the Rays held back Price purely to stall his arbitration clock and that it had nothing to do with baseball reasons -- namely, that Price needed (still needs) to work on developing a better changeup. Let's also assume that they also held back Longoria to stall his arbitration clock -- never mind the fact that they called him up on April 11 last year and he spent the rest of the season in the big leagues except for going on the DL.

So what? Do they Rays (or any other team) have the right to make these decisions for business reasons?

Alternatively, do teams owe a duty to call up prospects at the earliest time they may be ready -- never mind the business implications or veterans on the MLB roster who may be blocking their way?

It seems to me that if one goes to the step of saying that teams have a duty to call people up, there is a really slippery slope that follows from that.

More than anything about Chass, this seems to me to illustrate the expectations that the Rays had for journalists. That even if the Rays don't defend themselves, the journalists to be objective insert a balancing defense of the Rays' behavior, even if the journalist thinks such a defense is ridiculous.

How does Chass know that the Rays position is ridiculous if he put out his column without learning what that position was?

My criticism is that Chass is turning the "story" into Friedman's complaints about what he wrote previously. The reporter should avoid making himself the story. Maybe an editor would have told him something like that. Reporters receive complaints from the subjects of their stories all time. Unless an error needs to be corrected, in most cases the reporter doesn't write, "so and so didn't like what I wrote." If it's John Mitchell calling to say someone has her doo-dads in the ringer, that is a story. But Friedman's complaining that he wrote "he did not return my call," is not important.

However, I consider Chass a blogger, and, yeah, go ahead and put it in your blog.

Chass did respond to an email I sent him when he was at the NYT. He had written an article commenting on moneyball and the A's after Jeremy Brown retired, the implication being that the scouts were right and beane was wrong about the whole incident therefore moneyball is a failure. I pointed out that the reports were that Brown retired for family reasons, not because he would not have a job on the A's. I was nicely surprised that he did respond. He pretty much stuck to his guns, claiming that he did not know about the family problem. His response had several typos in it IIRC.

I'm shocked to learn that without "....of the New York Time" after his name his messages don't get returned...who would have guessed?

I don't believe it, but let's for the moment assume that it is true that the Rays held back Price purely to stall his arbitration clock and that it had nothing to do with baseball reasons -- namely, that Price needed (still needs) to work on developing a better changeup. Let's also assume that they also held back Longoria to stall his arbitration clock -- never mind the fact that they called him up on April 11 last year and he spent the rest of the season in the big leagues except for going on the DL.

Wait a second. They probably did nothing to stall his arbitration clock. He'll be a super-two anyway. But they gain a year extra before he's a free agent. That happened when he missed opening day. The fact that he spend the rest of the season in the big leagues actually enforces the idea that the Rays thought he was ready.

Your point stands about it being a good business decision and if the players don't like it they can do something about in the next CBA.

Wait a second. They probably did nothing to stall his arbitration clock. He'll be a super-two anyway. But they gain a year extra before he's a free agent.

Point taken. Thanks for clearing that up.


Your point stands about it being a good business decision and if the players don't like it they can do something about in the next CBA.

What can they do? I'm not really trying to argue, but it seems to me that even if the players don't like it, there is very little they can do. Even if all parties agreed (MLB and MLBPA alike), how does one craft an enforceable provision in the CBA that isn't hopelessly vague and overbroad?

"All teams with rookies deemed to be MLB ready (by whom?) cannot unduly delay (what is delay and what is unduly?) such players in being promoted to the major leagues for reasons not related to that player's development."

What if a team had a player that could play for some teams, but still had a few things he could work on while the team has a solid producing veteran at the position?

What if calling up the player (pursuant to such a provision) meant that he'd do nothing but sit on an MLB bench and/or be treated like a Rule 5 pick. Does this really do anyone any good, other that to give the kid service time?

The Rays have the right, under the CBA, to call up the players when they see fit. And there's also plenty of reason for them to have kept each of these players down. It's not like these guys are 25-year-olds who were killing the minors for years.

Chass sounds like such a whiner. And to say that he finds editors, useless, wow.

it seems to me that even if the players don't like it, there is very little they can do.

I don't know, either, but I'm not a labor lawyer. I'm sure that they can come up with something.

They could try to make free agent eligibility more like super-two, where keeping a guy down for one game at the start of his career wouldn't cost him that year for the free agency clock. Would the Rays have waited until June to call up Longoria? I don't know.

Someone in another thread suggested that a player could become a free agent 8 years after signing his first contract, or age 28, whichever is later. Personally, I'd choose whichever came first, but either way, if the date of free agency is set for a given player, then the team wouldn't have that particular reason to keep a player down.

Would the Rays have waited until June to call up Longoria? I don't know.

They didn't -- they called him up in April.

They didn't -- they called him up in April.

I know. It was worth it for them to delay his free agency by a year, but not worth it to try to delay his arbitration. So to delay free agency for a whole year, they just had to do without him for a week. If free agency rules were like super-two, then they would have had to wait until June if they wanted to delay his free agency. Would they have done that?

But for a guy like Chass, I can see it being pointless, he probably knows a lot more about writing than whoever a paper or website can find to edit him.

I seldom explain in a message why I am calling, I used to do that, but I found that if the person I was calling didn’t want to be asked about the subject, he didn’t call so I decided it was better not to alert the person in advance why I was calling.

...

Vaughn concluded our telephone conversation telling me not to call Friedman any more. I replied that if I write about the Rays again and feel the need to seek a comment from Friedman I will call and it will be Friedman’s prerogative to call or not to call back.

Yes, no editor could help Murray improve upon scintillating drool like that. I was panting in excitement at the prospect that Murry might clue me in on the secret of what he does when working on a column late at night.

If the toilet seat is up I will pee normally. If it's down I will pee normally except that I will usually splatter the seat with urine. I will not lift up the toilet seat on my own as a principle, because lifting toilet seats is beneath a writer, it's something bloggers are forced to do by their landlord mothers. I seldom explain why I refuse to lift the toilet seat. I used to do that, but my explanation caused friction with my wife. Now when she sees or feels the urine I left on the seat I just tell her "cataracts", and that I will be peeing on the toilet seat again, and it is her perogative whether she chooses to lift the toilet seat, or just wipe it off with the toilet paper kept handy in a roll by the seat, except when it's empty, which should not be a problem because she knows where to find the refills. I do not refill toilet paper rolls, again I am a writer, not a blogger.

They could try to make free agent eligibility more like super-two, where keeping a guy down for one game at the start of his career wouldn't cost him that year for the free agency clock. Would the Rays have waited until June to call up Longoria? I don't know.

FYI, one game doesn't delay the free agency clock; a year's service time is slightly less than the length in days of a season.