I don't think any of us are surprised by such numbers. At the same time it would be interesting to see if there were agents that appeared in Olney or Rosenthal columns at an unusual rate. The Heyman-Boras link has been discussed for so long that I'd be surprised if any other such agent/writer set up were so tight.

I'm more interested in the reliability of the information. If Heyman knows Boras and gets info from him, that's just a well-cultivated source. If Boras is playing him (which seems to be the implication with the Yankee stat), then Heyman needs to reevaluate how he reports what he gets from Scotty.

Re: #2, does Heyman disproportionately break the news when Boras clients reach a deal? If so, it's easy to imagine a deal in which Heyman tries to help intensify the bidding on Boras' clients in return for being the first to get the news from Boras any time a player reaches an agreement. I think that's what people suspect. Otherwise, it's just Heyman working hard, and you can't really fault him for reporting the information he gets.

Not only does this influence baseball fans, but it influences the whole baseball market, and is something I could foresee being banned by the next CBA.

What would get banned? Free agent rumors? How would you enforce the ban on whatever it is that's getting banned?

The CBA is, of course, an agreement between the MLBPA and MLB. Agents and the media are not parties to the agreement although clearly agents have to abide by various restrictions around the UPC, etc. It's hard to see why the MLBPA would object to the current arrangement which, if anything, would seem to spur interest in its members. The owners might object but what are they willing to give up to the union? And are they willing to accept similar restrictions on their own leaking behavior?

Then you get to enforcement. There will be no way to punish the media. In theory you could punish the agents but you'd have to "prove" they leaked the information and how in the world are you going to do that? The media intentionally use "a person familiar with the negotiations" to try to hide even which side the information came from.

But I would like to see evidence that this influences the actual baseball market because I don't believe it. If you jump your offer to an FA because you read an anonymously-sourced report that the Yankees might be interested then you deserve what you get.

If you jump your offer to an FA because you read an anonymously-sourced report that the Yankees might be interested then you deserve what you get.

But if someone reports an anonymously sourced offer (usually by an unspecified, maybe even ficticious team) in exchange for exclusive scoops from the anonymous source/agent, then that reporter is just a prostitute.

#3 Just from memory Tim Brown of Yahoo! broke the Prince signing.

This seems as good a place as any to post this:

If it’s February, it must be time for Jon Heyman to stump for Johnny Damon
Craig Calcaterra Feb 16, 2012, 3:19 PM EST

My favorite all-time “Jon Heyman trying to get Johnny Damon a job” column came two years ago when Heyman noted Damon’s “matinee-idol looks and obvious love of the big stage,” and parroted previous Scott Boras comments about Damon’s love of Detroit while wondering why oh why Damon had not yet been signed by someone.

He’s got a new one out now, and it has the air of a conspiracy theory...

I think the stuff people say about Heyman being a Scott Boras mouthpiece is over-played. Of course Boras is a source for Heyman, and if you were a reporter and had an awesome source like that you’d report what he gives you too.

But this column seems more like a sales pitch for Johnny Damon’s services than a piece of reportage.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/16/if-its-february-it-must-be-time-for-jon-heyman-to-stump-for-johnny-damon/

The media intentionally use "a person familiar with the negotiations" to try to hide even which side the information came from that they have no source, and are just making #### up.

FTFY.

So dumb. Heyman doesn't influence anyone or anything. He reports just like everyone else. It's up to readers to interpret how much they want to believe anonymous sources. If any GM ups an offer solely because of anonymous sourced rumors from any reporter, they should be canned.

This is just more whining by butthurt fans because their home teams player hired the best agent in baseball to get them out of town

So dumb. Heyman doesn't influence anyone or anything.

But he is influenced by Boras, which is the point of the article.

But he is influenced by Boras, which is the point of the article.

it's his job to be "influenced" by Boras. When the biggest agent in baseball calls to tell you that the Yankees are making an offer to one of his clients, he's supposed to report it. He can contact the Yankees for comments (fat chance they'll give any) but he can't bury sources.

The hot stove league is made of rumors, true and false. It's his job to report them unless he knows they are false. No one can show he's knowingly reported false stories, so we get a worthless pseudo statistical study like this.

Lean on Heyman until they can't afford the ticket?

it's his job to be "influenced" by Boras.

No, it's his job to report legitimate information. The study indicates that he is not perhaps doing that because he is too heavily influenced by Boras.

When the biggest agent in baseball calls to tell you that the Yankees are making an offer to one of his clients, he's supposed to report it.

I think the problem is more the way it has to get reported these days. He doesn't name his source (much like every other baseball reported these days). When you have an unnamed source and cannot go on the record with the name of the source (preventing you from reporting "X says Yankees made offer to Y.") then ideally you should be confirming that the source who is unwilling to go on record is actually telling you the truth by getting multiple independent sources. That used to be the way it was done.

It's not simply a Heyman problem. It's an industry wide sports journalism problem created by the current reporting climate. Arguably Heyman is the least problematic because you know you can't believe a word he says about any Boras client. With other journalists it's less clear.

it's his job to be "influenced" by Boras. When the biggest agent in baseball calls to tell you that the Yankees are making an offer to one of his clients, he's supposed to report it. He can contact the Yankees for comments (fat chance they'll give any) but he can't bury sources.

I think the question is whether Heyman writes puff pieces or treats Boras players differently in "exchange" for being on the top of Boras' speed dial when news breaks. Nobody faults Heyman for cultivating sources with agents. It's his integrity of his writing that people question.

It's not simply a Heyman problem. It's an industry wide sports journalism problem created by the current reporting climate. Arguably Heyman is the least problematic because you know you can't believe a word he says about any Boras client. With other journalists it's less clear.

It's not just an industry-wide sports journalism problem, it's a journalism problem and a broader integrity problem.

It's similar to tv "journalists" "covering" a story by pitting two talking heads from opposite sides against each other and scarcely referring with those funny things called "facts". It reached it's apogee in an Onion article that mocked NYTimes "objective" reporting as having been reduced to "President Reagan claimed today the Earth was flat. Democratic spokesmen denied the President's claim, stating in fact the Earth was round".

Uncritically regurgitating the statements of sources isn't reporting, it's public relations. Uncritically reporting without troubling to verify the claims of a single anonymous source is a firing offense. It's so blatantly serves the source that it's simply not credible. No editor should allow it.

Of course, I don't think anyone considers Heyman a reporter, so there's that.

I'm more interested in the reliability of the information. If Heyman knows Boras and gets info from him, that's just a well-cultivated source. If Boras is playing him (which seems to be the implication with the Yankee stat), then Heyman needs to reevaluate how he reports what he gets from Scotty.

I'm honestly not sure if the word "playing" should drop the "l" to make this statement more accurate.

As a skeptic, I have to admit even I'm growing tired of the "everyone's a liar" thing that seems to be accepted by many as truth.

I'm skeptical of that position.

No, it's his job to report legitimate information. The study indicates that he is not perhaps doing that because he is too heavily influenced by Boras.

This "study" says nothing of the kind. Its like saying the tech beat reporter at CNBC is too heavily influenced by his sources at Google and Apple, because he keeps reporting all their news.

There is often no way for a sports journalist to confirm a rumor. The Yankees aren't going to confirm interest.

And Boras, for all his PR puffery over clients, may be very accurate when leaking stories. At least no "study" has shown otherwise.

Heyman is merely reporting rumours as rumours. You, me and every baseball fan enjoys reading those rumours. He fails no journalism ethics test that Boras haters have yet devised.

This "study" says nothing of the kind. Its like saying the tech beat reporter at CNBC is too heavily influenced by his sources at Google and Apple, because he keeps reporting all their news.

Not true. The "study" is saying that the tech beat reporter at CNBC is reporting news at Google and Apple much more frequently than his competitors at CNN and Fox.

I don't disagree that this is a "study" in the loosest sense of the word but it certainly seems to match up with the general perception. At the very least I think Heyman needs to demonstrate that his reporting on Boras meets a standard of objectivity.

I think that the ethics of sports rumor reporting are really bad, and Heyman is worse than the industry as a whole. Rumors are frequently run with little or no corroboration and seem to frequently be both anonymous and single-sourced. Heyman manages to be worse than the industry as a whole by accepting Boras's statements at full face value as what appears to be a quid pro quo arrangement where Heyman prints all of Boras's rumors and Boras gives Heyman exclusive access. The quid pro quo is what is especially troubling.

This "study" says nothing of the kind. Its like saying the tech beat reporter at CNBC is too heavily influenced by his sources at Google and Apple, because he keeps reporting all their news.

Not quite. He's constantly reporting Boras clients to the Yankees, fine. But pretty much the only evidence we have that the Yankees are interested in Boras clients is Heyman. This isn't that hard to follow.

Herman's reporting on Boras clients has long been suspicious. The article gives a little more ammo to the notion he's not the most honest reporter.

The "study" is saying that the tech beat reporter at CNBC is reporting news at Google and Apple much more frequently than his competitors at CNN and Fox.

And although I don't think it's part of this "study", the other side of the criticism would analogize to his reporting seemingly nonexistent consumer demand for Google and Apple products.