[T]here was this CBSSports.com report quoting one of its reporters, Jon Heyman: “Heyman also notes that the finalists to land Fielder were the Nationals, Tigers and” – look out, here it comes – “one other ‘mystery team.’”
It is no surprise that Heyman would cite a mystery team that no one else knew about, even if he didn’t identify the team. Heyman, according to an Associated Press report on the Fielder signing, “first reported the agreement with Fielder.”
That Heyman is first with a major Boras signing has come to be expected in the baseball and reporting industries. There’s nothing wrong with a reporter having a good relationship with an agent, but the Heyman-Boras link has been so beneficial to Boras that years ago baseball executives told me they understood that Heyman was on Boras’ payroll.
Heyman denied that charge, but his reporting on Boras and Boras clients has continued to arouse suspicion. Heyman has recently moved from Sports Illustrated’s Web site to CBSSports.com, but his reputation has followed him. Researching Boras, I came across this item on a Web site called Tauntr.com:
Jon Heyman: Scott Boras’ Puppet…
Rich Lederer of the Baseball Analysts broke down the interesting relationship in a great post a while back, but the trend has continued. And, though Heyman is more involved with Boras during the Hot Stove season, look for him to “break” some Boras-related stories as the trade deadline approaches.
In the interest of full disclosure, I can say that Boras has never leaked a signing or a trade or a story of any kind to me. I don’t even think he talks to me. He hasn’t returned a telephone call in a long time, and I didn’t bother calling him for this column.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Swedish Chef Posted: January 28, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4048207)That's the kind of high-quality research that newspaper men like Chass knows how to do and the unwashed blogging masses don't.
PURPOSE OF CAPS LOCK KEY STILL AN ENIGMA
Um, everyone else?
Yeah, I feel like I've agreed with the last few Chass pieces that have been linked here. It turns out that if you write articles attacking Jon Heyman and Buster Olney, I'm on board.
That's a pretty serious charge to be tossing out there, even in such a passive-agressive style. So, my assessment of Murray is going to hold on "ethically challenged."
Doesn't pass the smell test, is there anybody that would turn down the chance to get a scoop from Boras? It seems more like a favor from Boras than the reverse.
OTOH it sounds a bit odd for Boras to be granting favor after favor to the same sportswriter, no? Why not instead give scoops to several reporters?
No, no, no! That's not a good place to use that word. I know you are proud and all that you just learned it, but I will not let anybody call Chass brainy.
If we do this celebrity deathmatch style, I'll allow it.
Because he has shown over and over a willingness to print the leaks uncritically, and to a large readership?
How?
Because he has shown over and over a willingness to print the leaks uncritically
And Chass is the mouthpiece for Marvin Miller and has shown himself willing to print just about any rumor uncritically. (I know that's not what you were commenting on)
Because he has shown over and over a willingness to print the leaks uncritically
And if anybody in baseball ever wants to slime somebody, they only have to call Murray.
How?
Well, obviously it would be challenging to PROVE malice. Murray doesn't write anything here that is malicious but one gets the sense he doesn't think much of Heyman -- it's kind of a strange topic for him to write on. IANAL but I'm guessing that if you could get Murray on the stand it wouldn't be hard to goad him into talking smack about Heyman.
Still the bit about Heyman being on Boras's payroll, even if legally defensible, is up there with backne in terms of stuff you should have better corroboration of before publishing.
Also the bit about Lederer's column was weird -- why cite a description of Lederer's article? How hard is it to find the original?
That's hardly unique to Heyman. That approach seems to be the standard when it comes to reporting rumors. It is lousy reporting but seems more the industry standard than anything else.
I don't have much use for Heyman but other than who is sources are (i.e. Boras) he doesn't seem any different than most other reporters to me.
Sorry to nitpick, but how are you unsure if someone is talking to you?
I'm sorry, was that directed at me?
I couldn't tell.
8-)
DB
Really? To accuse a journalist of taking bribes seems to b about as malicious as you can get.
And it's a pretty ridiculous charge. Obviously both parties have all the incentive in the world to work together, the only reason Chass wrote this was his overwhelming jealousy at being shunted out of legit journalism.
Imagine if we were talking actual journalism, though. Say a reporter in return for access published any rumor or leak Dick Cheney wanted to appear in the press. I'm pretty sure that goes well beyond merely the mildly unsavory.
This item just targets one of his own.
Chass doesn't say that Boras is paying Heyman; he says that some baseball executives have told him that they understood that Boras was paying Heyman. If that statement is true then there can be no libel. Even if those executives were wrong, or deliberately lying to Chass, or just kidding.
Of course, that doesn't mean Chass isn't being a slime ball. OTOH, he's not the first person to make this particular accusation.
And when Boras leaks outright lies?
I'm pretty sure there is a whole network that operated that way for about 8 years, except it was Rove not Cheney.
Yes, Heyman's reportage when it comes to the dealings of Boras and his clients is blatantly unethical, regardless of whether he's getting money on the side or not. It has been obvious for years that he's acting as Crazy Scottie's media lackey, reporting as news whatever Boras wants him to without doing the usual reporting legwork of getting verification from an additional corroborating source. If he's not getting paid by Boras, then he's a cheap whore indeed.
To reiterate someone above, he's not "accusing" Heyman of being on Boras's payroll, he's "reporting" that baseball execs have told him about "their understanding" that Heyman was on Boras's payroll.
So you have to prove that's untrue (I assume that's a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, not "reasonable doubt" but still virtually impossible to do) -- i.e. it's not enough to show Heyman wasn't on Boras's payroll but that Chass was not told this by baseball "execs" -- and that it was done with "malice" not due to, say, Chass misunderstanding what was said or taking a joke out of context or whatever.
The rest of what Murray writes isn't flattering to Heyman but he mainly says he still "arouses suspicion" (lovely weasel words). Then he cites a website that he's probably the only person who's ever visited. But things conceivably might be different if he wrote here or elsewhere about how he hates Heyman because Heyman once scooped him on a story or some such.
It's a hatchet job no doubt, and one his old editors at the NYT never would have let into print (if for no other reason than it criticizes another journalist by name!), but it's pretty easily defensible against a libel charge.
Is this a joke, or do you really believe it's routine for reporters to be on the payroll of sources?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main