Who’s obsession is more unseemly?

January 9th, 2007 → 9:35 am @ // 9 Comments

It’s a good question. On the one hand, you have my obsession with Murray Chass; on the other hand, there’s Murray’s infant-like fascination with the Red Sox. Whatever the answer to that question is, it’s fairly clear (to me, anyway), that my obsession doesn’t result in my putting bad info in a national newspaper week after week, while Murray’s does.

Like, for instance, today, when apropos of absolutely nothing, Murray revisits the J.D. Drew non-controversy. There’s no new info here — heck, there’s really not even any new reporting here, unless you count a phone call to Drew’s mom as reporting — but there is another chance for Chass to trot out his contention/implication that there was tampering going on between the Red Sox and Drew’s agent, Scott Boras. Murray’s had a hard-on for this issue for more than a month, and the fact that multiple outlets (like The Boston Globe and the Los Angeles Times, the hometown papers of the two teams most intimately involved in this issue) have pretty much shown that Chass’s story had tenuously little connection to reality doesn’t seem to sway him one bit.

In a weird way, that’s understandable — after all, he recently told a reader that “my reporting is always correct.” But what’s up with the Times‘s editors — you know, the gatekeepers? At least one national sportswriter has written in to them, asking why Chass is allowed to print information that’s demonstrably false (like the claim that Dodgers GM Ned Colletti was refusing to talk to Theo when, Colletti readily confirmed that the two were speaking almost daily), or, for that matter, why Chass’s stories seem completely exempt from corrections.

Somehow, I doubt we’ll ever get an answer to that question. Sigh.


Post Categories: J.D. Drew & Murray Chass & New York Times

9 Comments → “Who’s obsession is more unseemly?”


  1. PatsFanDK

    10 years ago

    I e-mailed Murray when he first “broke” the story. I accused him of making things up, here was his response.

    Murray: You might want to reread what I wrote. You obviously think I wrote that the Red Sox tampered with Drew. I did not, though I suspect they did. I wrote that baseball officials and executives of other clubs were talking about their suspicions that the Red Sox tampered. If you know that is a lie, you must be a terrific reporter.

    Murray Chass

    So there you have it. His article was based on “suspicions”

    Reply

  2. Jack

    10 years ago

    Murray may not be your white whale Seth, but Theo is most definitely his. Anyway, I’m glad that he continues to provide material for you. It amuses me.

    Reply

  3. drleather2001

    10 years ago

    Well, I SUSPECT that walking up the GM, assistant GM, PR Director, etc…of ANY club and saying: “Hey, What do you think about the Sox maybe tampering with Drew? A little SUSPICOUS, eh?” to illicit a response (even if that response is “Huh? What?”) constitutes “talking about their suspicions” in Murray’s book.

    What a turd.

    Reply

  4. lehigh311

    10 years ago

    Hey Seth- Never really gave Murray much thought until you started pointing out his inconsistencies with, um, the truth.
    That being said, don’t you think it’s a bit strange that even the Boston media isn’t making a big deal about this? Murray is right in one thing, it shouldn’t take five weeks to clear up minor language in a contract. I don’t think tampering has anything to do with the situation, rather, its clearly about his shoulder. I really can’t remember a situation like this ever happening where a player was in limbo for this length of time. And the fact that the Boston media isn’t coming down harder on the side of negating this contract since no one wanted him in town in the first place is just plain weird. Probably just a lot of posturing between the 2 sides, I’m just surprised it hasn’t gotten more attention in Red Sox crazed nation.

    Reply

  5. HFXBOB

    10 years ago

    Seth, thanks to you and the Boston Dirt Dogs link to this story today, I’ve finally been forced to read one of Chass’s stories. And although he does refer to the tampering thing, the main point of the story seems to be the valid question of what the hell is going on with this contract? It sure would be nice if this thing gets cleared up soon. Have the Red Sox ever had a weirder or more contentious signing than this one? I fervently hope that Drew, assuming he does sign, will prove to be a much better acquisition than his legion of critics would have us believe.

    Reply

  6. archie

    10 years ago

    I’ve emailed Chass several times over the past few years and have gotten similarly defensive responses. He’s pulled some doozies since 2003, but he reached an all-time low when he pimped J.D. Drew’s mom for information.

    Reply

  7. branatical

    10 years ago

    Murray Chass’ reporting skills are so weak he can’t even get JD Drew’s home number, even after he talks to the dude’s mom?

    Nick Cafardo reached Drew at home, he was also able to get information that Chass claims no one is talking about:

    “Drew sought and received a second opinion from Dr. James Andrews in Birmingham, Ala. while Red Sox team physician Dr. Thomas Gill did his own battery of tests when Drew came for a physical in mid-December.” – Nick Cafardo

    Now here is what Murray wrote in his column:

    “Drew had his physical weeks ago and might have had a second one. No one is saying if he did, citing privacy laws that give general managers and agents an excuse not to talk about a player’s medical condition when they don’t want to talk about it.” – Murray Chass

    If I am Murray Chass and I am a writer for the NY Times, I do Lexis searches and find out (A.) Other reporters in my business have actually spoken to Drew at home and (B.) other reporters have found out the name of the doctor who allegedly did a second examination. Then, I give up on my nonsensical columns about the Red Sox and write more about how Jeter and ARod are planning a trip to Holland in the spring to pick tulips, all in an effort to become close friends again.

    Reply

  8. chris

    10 years ago

    Murray writes like his column is something he does in his spare time, when taking a pause from his day-trading activities. I have my own blog (on pro cycling) and find it unthinkable that someone could be as cavalier as I am despite being well-paid and having all day to execute. The only defense I can raise for him is that sportswriters eat unfathomable quantities of ballpark food over their careers, so who knows what’s crawling around inside his frontal lobes.

    Reply

  9. Nordberg

    10 years ago

    Maybe this is rationalizing, but Boras and Theo have been busy. They had other deals to get done, and then came the holidays.
    But, yeah, it is weird that this isn’t done.
    Also, I suspect that Murray Chass is Dan Shaughnessy’s alterego. No, wait, I suspect that they are the same person. Crap, I mean, …. crap.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: