The chance to read this dreck in your daily paper? Um…priceless?

January 31st, 2007 → 10:25 am @ // 7 Comments

Murray Chass articles about the not-yetness of J.D. Drew’s contract with the Red Sox in the three weeks before January 25: five.

Articles in the week since the final details of the contract were announced: one.

Nonsensical, logically inconsistent suppositions (based, naturally, on anonymous sources) contained in said article by the only baseball beat writer on record who has compared himself to Woodward and Bernstein: one. (“Word out of the Drew camp was it agreed to the out clause to allow the Red Sox’ doctor to save face after a second opinion supposedly found nothing suspicious about Drew’s shoulder. But the final structure of the contract seems to enable Boras to save face because he recommended that Drew walk away from the Dodgers’ deal. Had the Red Sox contract extended the out clause to the final three years, Drew could have wound up with only $28 million.”)

Corrections attached to any of Chass’s Drew-Red Sox articles, despite the on-the-record insistence by the story’s main characters that Chass’s unnamed sources are completely incorrect: Zero.


Post Categories: Media reporting & Murray Chass & New York Times

7 Comments → “The chance to read this dreck in your daily paper? Um…priceless?”


  1. dansoxfan

    10 years ago


    “When you talk about the status of the contract,” Boras said, “guarantee provisions are not customarily applicable in normal major league contracts. In this contract, the guarantee provision is in place with the exception of a very, very myopic element of this, so this is something that is certainly treated for all intents and purposes as a $70 million contract.”

    Guarantee provisions “are not customarily applicable” in normal major league contracts? Boras would be hard pressed to name one major free agent contract he has negotiated that-has not been guaranteed. The one for Alex Rodriguez? Barry Zito? Drew’s Dodgers’ contract?

    Am I reading this wrong? Wasn’t Boras saying that it is not common to have a provision that eliminates the guaranteed nature of the contract? Does Murray have it backwards or do I?

    Reply

  2. MarshallDog

    10 years ago

    Two paragraphs at the end really troubled me…

    “Epstein was presumably referring to routine provisions that bar players from engaging in potentially dangerous activities like skydiving or racecar driving. A player’s surgically repaired throwing shoulder does not quite fit into that category…”

    “Guarantee provisions “are not customarily applicable” in normal major league contracts? Boras would be hard pressed to name one major free agent contract he has negotiated that-has not been guaranteed. The one for Alex Rodriguez? Barry Zito? Drew’s Dodgers’ contract?”

    I’m not so hard pressed to name one such contract… actually, I can name two: Pudge Rodriguez and Magglio Ordonez. Just further proof that Murray refuses to actually research what he wants to report on.

    And what’s with the swipe at Epstein? The fact that he was able to get such a clause into this contract speaks to Epstein’s competence as a GM, but Murray seems to think otherwise.

    Reply

  3. MarshallDog

    10 years ago

    Oh, and dansoxfan, I didn’t even notice that at first. What Murray has done here is take a quote that says exactly what he’s trying to point out, but equating it to the opposite in order to make his point and appear more observant than the person saying the quote. That’s just insane, and demonstrates Murray clearly has an axe to grind. If not, he might have noticed he and Boras actually agree.

    Reply

  4. StuckAtTheCask

    10 years ago

    >
    Meanwhile … Seth’s good buddy Murray Chass, Mr. Sensitivity when it comes to possible tampering in MLB, can’t quite bring himself to call ol’ Charlie Monfort out — despite the fact that the Rockies’ buffoon of an owner blatantly named names (Lowell, Tavarez) to the media while in the middle of sensitive trade discussions. Yeah, OK, Murray – you’re just out for the truth – no anti-Red Sox bias or anything.

    Reply

  5. TBerg

    10 years ago

    This isn’t the only website that is amused by Murray’s strange obsession with the JD Drew negotiations:

    “One thing that never made sense was how much was made out of the long-delayed Drew contract. One New York newspaper seemed to have a column a week on this not-hot topic.” – John Heyman, SI.com

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/jon_heyman/01/31/scoop.wednesday/1.html

    Reply

  6. overdone

    10 years ago

    ah, but the finest comedy in that article is on its first page.

    quote:

    [The more important they are perceived to be, the more money middle relievers are earning.

    In an era when starting pitchers last fewer innings, middle relievers have become more important. A manager needs one or more pitchers to get him from the starter to the closer.]

    …i almost tipped over laughing, reading that. it reminds me of going to fenway five or six years ago with a friend from london and his swedish girlfriend–their first baseball game ever. i had to convince my friend dan that i truly believe there are more interesting things on the field than how the outfielders’ asses look in what amounts to tights.

    THE MORE IMPORTANT THEY ARE PERCEIVED TO BE, THE MORE MONEY THEY MAKE? this, my friends, is the new york times’ hall of fame baseball writer.

    “See, if the pitcher throws four balls to a batter, it’s a walk.”

    Reply

  7. gkirkness

    10 years ago

    I had thought Murray had just made a mistake, so I pointed out the Rodriguez contract as a contrary example to him via email. His response:

    “…the first two years of the contract you cite
    were completely guaranteed.”

    Given that the first 3 years of the Drew deal are also guaranteed, I now havehave no idea what his point was. I pointed this out in a subsequent email to which he hasn’t deigned to reply. Go figure.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: