Evan Grant - journalist or jezebel?
by eclou on Feb 26, 2010 12:04 AM CST
Email
Print
I am at spring training. After talking to some of the players over dinner it has become clear that Evan Grant has been intentionally propagating controversy amongst the players with regard to the CJ Wilson interview. Mr Grant actually printed out sections of the Wilson interview and presented it to players to try to spark a reaction. This action only served to foment discontent and friction between players, which he has now succeeded to some degree. I find this disgusting, but am not surprised based on the low level of Mr Grant's track record. As a fan, I would hope that journalists following my team would not try to create news rather than report it.
215 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Evan Grant's job is to get stories
And for whatever reason what C.J. said was a story, so it’s only natural if he asked other players about it. Although I am not sure how accurate your information is as I have a hard time believing anybody would have dinner with you.
You would be doing the same thing as him. Trying to a spark a reaction. What C.J. said was a bigger deal than it should have been, but this Evan hate is even more ridiculous.
I'm just goofin' new boot goofin'
It's his job to follow a story
and getting player reactions is part of that, I can’t exactly fault him for that even if he does seem to have an axe to grind when it comes to Wilson.
It probably won’t be long now before we hear that Young and clubhouse leaders have taken CJ aside to talk to him again.
"I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." - Mitch Hedberg
PLEASE ALLOW ME TO CLEAR UP ANY MISCONCEPTIONS
I was on my way to the back fields to watch some BP when I was alerted to this thread and I thought it significant enough that it deserved my immediate attention.
Let me address eclou’s concerns:
1. My biggest concern is the accusation that I ran around with printed out sections of the column that had CJ Wilson’s initial quotes in it to all corners of the clubhouse. I did not print out sections of the story. I did not take a copy of the column to the players. I did not read quotes to players. That is not and was not the focus of my piece on Wilson. My piece was my opinion. I did overhear one player speaking directly to Wilson about the situation so I know it was addressed. Other players have commented to me.
2. In the initial story, I did read the quotes to Nolan Ryan, who had not seen the column, but was aware of the context. He asked me what was said. I replied by reading the quotes to him. Ryan did a great job of diffusing the situation.
3. I find the attack on my integrity concerning at the very least. I think I operate openly and directly with players and management. It is my job to know what is going on in the Rangers’ clubhouse and in their offices. I try to the best of my extent to get that information.
Thanks for your attention. Eclou, I’d be happy to address any concerns you may have via private email. Everybody else, feel free to write me as well. And for those who have offered supportive words here, let me just say thanks for that support.
by Evan Grant on Feb 26, 2010 12:27 PM CST up reply actions 9 recs
I think
your the best beat writer in America. I wouldn’t pay any attention to this nut eclou.
by SanDiegoKev on Feb 26, 2010 12:31 PM CST up reply actions
Okay
So eclou is full of shit, then? The original post reads like you’ve done what he accused you of in the last few days or something.
Anyway it’s good you responded.
by Black Francis on Feb 26, 2010 12:35 PM CST up reply actions
I've been very critical...
of your opinions of Ceej, but I don’t see anything that you did wrong here. There’s a fine line between disagreeing with you and questioning your integrity. I agree that eclou’s post was out of line and basically ignorant.
I think it’s important you know that even those of use who disagree with how you handled the Wilson situation, don’t feel the way this guy does about your overall body of work.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
I'm calling bullshit on eclou
He’s been having dinner with players and chatting about Evan Grant? Bullshit. If he has this type of contact with them he’s either affiliated with the Rangers, part of the media or has some agent/family relationship with a player. Any way you cut it, if this person was one of them an anonymous post would be a chickenshit way to raise this concern.
Again, eclou is full of shit unless he/she wants to explain why he/she gets this type of access to Rangers players.
"You promised me, Eckstein, that if I followed you, you would walk with me always. But I noticed that during the most trying periods of my life, there have only been one set of prints in the sand. Why, when I have needed you most, have you not been there for me?" David Eckstein replied, "Because my little legs had gotten tired, and you were carrying me." And I looked down and saw that I was still carrying David Eckstein.
Then he grounded out weakly to second.
And we have silence from eclou
"You promised me, Eckstein, that if I followed you, you would walk with me always. But I noticed that during the most trying periods of my life, there have only been one set of prints in the sand. Why, when I have needed you most, have you not been there for me?" David Eckstein replied, "Because my little legs had gotten tired, and you were carrying me." And I looked down and saw that I was still carrying David Eckstein.
Then he grounded out weakly to second.
A post from eclou
does not really qualify as an attack on your credibility. Eclou has an axe to grind, and nothing you ever do will change that, so just ignore him and carry on.
Freude, schoener Goetterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische dein Heiligtum.
It's also not the opinion of the majority
Most of us here realize (as have said in this post), the man has a job to do.
"I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." - Mitch Hedberg
Ditto
I don’t always agree with the opinions of EG regarding this team but I don’t doubt his skills as a journalist and definitely don’t question his integrity.
There are three things in my life which I really love: God, my family, and baseball. The only problem - once baseball season starts, I change the order around a bit. ~Al Gallagher
by Suicide Prince on Feb 26, 2010 1:33 PM CST up reply actions
I believe you, EG
Now get your ass back to the amazing work you are known to do!
"Jurick Profar is tired of practice!! I wanna play I wanna play….waiting for march 12 to go to spring training! to kill some pichers:D:D I am Jurickson Profar son of judeska and chesmond.. And I was born ready! ready to play baseball!!" - Jurickson Profar
I knew my post would be met with some trepidation and hostility
Which it deservedly should be. I have almost no history here. However Evan you don’t get a free pass on this. If my “misconceptions” serve to do nothing more than make you reconsider doing things like this in the future then some good might come from it.
I don’t give players a pass for making questionable comments but in the same light the journalists that follow this team don’t need to be stirring the pot either. Substitute the names of the players involved and ask again why these comments made by one player would be immediately presented to other players before the ink dried on the press. You really want to go on the record as saying you did not present quotes to some of the bullpen?
This team may have a real chance to contend this year, which is something that has not come often in the 30+ years I have followed them. It bewilders me that someone would intentionally try to instill a sense of ill-will between players. Yes CJ has made some comments that can raise eyebrows but you have made certain that everyone heard about it. Now there is a real rift between some of the players that have closest in the bullpen last year as a result, and you know that your hands aren’t clean. I want this team to win the pennant. Do you? If so then act like it. You have alot more influence as a writer than I do as a fan.
we're from Texas
CJ says "Relax"
If you're going to respond and basically accuse our top beatwriter of lying
You might want to offer more than vague insinuations/accusations.
Morality you can fake. Fun you either have or you don't.
Evan knows exactly who he stirred the pot with and already made vague insinuations
the regarding players now in conflict. It is embarrassing for the players and the team, yet Grant seemed to derive some pleasure from this:
“Several pitchers have already taken it upon themselves to, um, discuss it with him. Leadership in action.” – 2/22 EG
In the anticipation that the guys can and will clear things up, it is better to leave them anonymous. I’m not being any less vague than Grant in the whole matter.
we're from Texas
CJ says "Relax"
What's your connection with C.J.?
I mean, you’ve got quite the man-crush on him.
"Blalock in the cleanup spot makes gives me agita." - Dustin
Not sure your post
was met with any trepidation.
If you don’t understand big words, you probably shouldn’t use them.
Is English not your primary language?
"I don't condone steroids or any other type of growth hormones or anything else, but I could care less, and, for the most part, I don't think the fans give a (bleep). The people that care about it are the people that probably don't like baseball," - Jim Leyland
I THINK I'VE ALREADY ANSWERED THESE ACCUSATIONS
So, I’ll stand by what I say.
As I mentioned earlier, if you’ve got an issue with how I report, I’d appreciate you asking me for my side of the story – in a private email – before you make some bold accusations that are incorrect. It’s what I do as a reporter. I try to confirm something BEFORE I report it to ensure that I’m correct. Once again, I did not print any quotes out and take them to members of the team.
As far as I was concerned, this story had a 24-hour life. WIlson said some things that did not go over well with ANYBODY in the organization. Wilson has a history of saying things like that. After Nolan Ryan said his piece and I blogged about it, I didn’t write another story about it. My column on Wilson for last Sunday’s paper did include some colorful descriptions of him, but didn’t discuss any rifts in the bullpen. My newsletter column did mention the incident, but it was one paragraph and it also was quickly dismissed by saying teammates had taken it upon themselves to talk with him.
And, let’s just be clear here: Asking players for their reaction to things said about them is well within the scope of my job.
Since the early part of the week, nobody has mentioned this to me. And I’ve not mentioned it again in print or online. The story has been dead, in my opinion, for several days. The only person still bringing it up appears to be you.
by Evan Grant on Feb 27, 2010 7:33 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs
To be clear I have not accused you of trying to re-hash this issue like the "ball flip" which had so many re-runs in your column
that it should have been syndicated. The 24 hour timeline is part of my issue with the whole situation. Players don’t generally read the paper about themselves. The first day the pitchers report to camp if you did not present the info to the other players (as I know to be true) then they happened to just divine the information? Between sprints did guys line up to surf the net looking for the Star Telegram columns?
Why do I bring it up now? Because I just heard about it now. I’m bringing it to your audiences’ attention the same way you bring player controversy to our attention. This is not part of my job. I’m on vacation. This has been done simply from an overwhelming sense of indignation. (I’ll save you a click DJ, it means “a reactive emotion of anger over perceived mistreatment, insult, or malice”)
I can understand that part of your job is to be entertaining and colorful in order to increase circulation and hits. Just recognize that your actions as a journalist sometimes have serious if not unintended consequences to the players and the team. It will make you a better journalist, and it might help you win the trust of the players
we're from Texas
CJ says "Relax"
Have you recognized
That “Jezebel” was completely improper?
by brettgardner on Feb 27, 2010 10:02 AM CST up reply actions
1. "If my
“misconceptions” serve to do nothing more than make you reconsider doing things like this in the future" – At what point does a fan become the arbiter of what a paid journalist should and shouldn’t do? I submit it’s his to decide what’s news and how to report it.
2. “stirring the pot” – That’s your take, a subjective one at that.
3. “comments made by one player” – That player having established a history of making self interested statements at the expense of team mates. By the way, what Wilson said in this instance is true in my view, but asking the reaction of his team mates given the history is not without merit.
4. “I want this team to win the pennant. Do you?” – Respectfully, if you honestly think he should answer yes or no, then you’ve no idea what his job is, and should probably refrain from commenting on it.
by poster formerly known as ncrangerman on Feb 27, 2010 7:38 AM CST up reply actions
Well
If that’s true, then that’s not too great.
But, to give Evan the benefit of the doubt here… all we have to go on is your word and your opinion (no offense, but I’m sure you can see the irony there) and you haven’t presented much of a timeline on the matter either. Is this a past tense thing, or a current thing? If he was asking them about it a couple days ago when the players where arriving in camp for the first time, then yah, all that really is is journalism. There’s only a real problem here if the matter is actually still being harped on in the current tense, and even then…
Morality you can fake. Fun you either have or you don't.
CJ shouldn't say stupid shit
EG is doing his job.
That's why they call them business sox
by egriffey on Feb 26, 2010 12:50 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
I would agree that people in general would be better off not saying controversial things
however is it really a journalist’s job to make sure that all of the other players are confronted with the text? At the beginning of camp? Most of the players don’t follow the journalism or read the blogs. The bullpen which was a very tight knit group last year now is starting out with some disharmony. I don’t expect everyone to take my word on this stuff, but I do get alot of legit info. For instance Darren Oliver’s H2 was just stolen from a movie theater.
we're from Texas
CJ says "Relax"
Because they dont read the news or read blogs is why he has to show them
so that he can get their reaction / comments for his story.
He may be stirring up shit, but cj said what he said and evan is obviously being a journalist and following a story.
If there is now disharmony in the bullpen it’s not because of evan it’s because of cj and his comments.
"I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." - Mitch Hedberg
Evan Grant stole Darren Oliver's H2?
by Adam J. Morris on Feb 26, 2010 10:29 AM CST up reply actions
awesome childish retort
…and now any credibility you might have had is lost.
"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic" - Charles Darwin, you know who he is...
It's not that I don't take your word for it
I just think EG is doing what he’s paid to do. CJ’s comments are a story, and it’s a journalists job to get the people who are relevant to the story to comment on such things. If there is disharmony in the room, that is CJ’s doing, not EG’s.
That's why they call them business sox
Are you sure you don't mean
bites tongue….off. Then blends it up as a delicious smoothie for work tomorrow
I'm just goofin' new boot goofin'
Pretty sure, but you'll have to ask Future Pants. He knows what I mean better than I do.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Feb 26, 2010 1:18 AM CST up reply actions
The Gist:
I hate everyone and am made of rage. In this case, it would probably be directed to Grant.
Booo
I was kind of looking forward to your reaction to this thread.
Morality you can fake. Fun you either have or you don't.
Reaction?
You want Tron’s reaction, eh?
Here ya go.
by shroomer on Feb 26, 2010 1:37 AM CST up reply actions 10 recs
ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Dude, I think just woke my neighbors.
That’s incredible.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Feb 26, 2010 2:04 AM CST up reply actions
Good god that's funny
"You promised me, Eckstein, that if I followed you, you would walk with me always. But I noticed that during the most trying periods of my life, there have only been one set of prints in the sand. Why, when I have needed you most, have you not been there for me?" David Eckstein replied, "Because my little legs had gotten tired, and you were carrying me." And I looked down and saw that I was still carrying David Eckstein.
Then he grounded out weakly to second.
I am also biting my tongue
"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan
by Dirk Diggler on Feb 26, 2010 7:22 AM CST up reply actions
If true...
…that sucks. He’s not creating news, though. This falls under what a normal journalist would do. I’m just not sure a normal beat writer would do it.
possibly not
But most beat writers aren’t really journalists, rather they excel at writing puff pieces that guarantee their access and good graces with the team they are covering.
Not mediocre. Right about average
Grant's asking questions,
soliciting opinions, providing reference material for context. Whether I or anyone else like/dislike the results, the bottom line is he’s doing his job.
A Stephens
by poster formerly known as ncrangerman on Feb 26, 2010 7:29 AM CST reply actions
Uhhh...
I find this disgusting, but am not surprised based on the low level of Mr Grant’s track record.
If you find that particular practice disgusting, that’s one thing. I, for instance, don’t: it’s his job to get the story, and presenting the players with the quote in question is just a way of making sure they can offer informed quotes. But if you feel like you would have done something differently, I can see that argument.
But to refer to the “low level” of Evan Grant’s track record is totally laughable. Evan is — and has been for the better part of a decade — a highly respected writer and journalist. The dude just won Texas Sportswriter of the Year.
Get over yourself.
"Don’t want to spend my night waiting in line unless it’s for more beer."
--EssBee, on LoneStarBall, Jan. 21, 2010
Eclou may have a problem with Grant in general
I don’t. But I do wonder why he’s working on something that by now is an old story. Spring Training has started and there are a million other things to cover. It does seem like he has some kind of axe to grind.
by Black Francis on Feb 26, 2010 8:54 AM CST up reply actions
Wow.
The dude just won Texas Sportswriter of the Year.
Hadn’t seen that. That’s awesome. Well deserved.
So what's the word on the street today?
What did Chuck Greenberg have for lunch, how much did he contribute to the final bill?
"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan
by Dirk Diggler on Feb 27, 2010 4:50 PM CST up reply actions
Interesting.
You and “brettgardner” are pretty sarcastic about that for people that clearly weren’t able to make much of a case for what you were claiming.
Care to try again? Here you go:
$535M club value
-$475M debt
= $60M equity
$60M * 5% (Ryan/Greenberg stake according to Grant) = $3,000,000.
Please explain what about that is wrong.
Why would you put my name in quotes?
Are you implying that I don’t actually exist?
by brettgardner on Feb 27, 2010 8:02 PM CST up reply actions
Where did you get the $475 million in debt assumed from?
My understanding is that the new group assumed only $260 million or so in debt.
If they only had to come up with $60 million in cash, this deal would have been a lot easier to pull off.
by Adam J. Morris on Feb 27, 2010 10:16 PM CST up reply actions
x
Thanks for the serious and intelligent response.
Where did you get the $475 million in debt assumed from?
It is just a hypothetical scenario (that of not removing any debt) under which Ryan/Greenberg’s 5% (assuming that number is correct) would only require $3 million in cash.
If they only had to come up with $60 million in cash, this deal would have been a lot easier to pull off.
Not necessarily.
Raising $60M for any investment is not easy, especially compared to pre-2008. But finding people to plow $60M into a firm – in an industry with highly volatile cash flows – that will still have an 8:1 debt/equity ratio is a far bigger task.
My understanding is that the new group assumed only $260 million or so in debt.
That might be true. When I originally posted the hypothetical in another thread, I acknowledged I am not completely sure what the publicly confirmed numbers on the deal are.
That said, how did you get the ~$260M number? (Not saying it is wrong. Just that I would be interested in reading more about it.)
So, if I've understood this correctly,
you have definitive inside information to the effect that Greenberg’s putting up only $3 million, but you don’t have any other details about the terms of the sale?
Because so far as I’ve seen, there haven’t been any “publicly confirmed” numbers, and you’re the only one who’s floated the $3 million figure.
x
So, if I’ve understood this correctly, you have definitive inside information to the effect that Greenberg’s putting up only $3 million, but you don’t have any other details about the terms of the sale?
Correct.
OK.
I don’t have strong feelings one way or the other, but do you realize how that could strike folks as… not quite solid?
Yes.
I acknowledged that in the previous thread about this.
But that’s why I have asked for the numbers (or other facts) from those that have responded to the claim with such incredulity. It’s one thing to note I can’t or won’t prove my claim (no argument there), but it’s quite another to not have any good defense for one’s firm rejection of the possible validity of the claim as well.
It's really more
That you have no credibility. There’s no reason to believe you at all, especially since you’re too much of a puss to put your name out there.
by brettgardner on Feb 27, 2010 11:18 PM CST up reply actions
So don't believe me.
I’ve already told you that’s fine and understandable.
But you have your own claim as to what the number is. Yet you are completely incapable of defending that claim. You don’t appear to have anything intelligent to add to the discussion.
I don't have a claim for any number
What the fuck are you talking about?
by brettgardner on Feb 27, 2010 11:29 PM CST up reply actions
OK.
I was under the impression you were claiming the number is greater than $3M given your responses. My bad.
Honestly, it's not much of a discussion.
“I know for a fact that Greenberg is only putting up $3 million.”
“Hmm. That seems like a relatively small amount of money. How do you know that for a fact?”
“I can’t tell you, but here are some numbers I admit I completely made up, but that would support my claim, based on what Evan Grant has reported about the sale.”
“…”
You know what the best part about all this is
That it’s managed to bleed over into this particular thread.
Morality you can fake. Fun you either have or you don't.
I'm just catching up on all of this now.
I think I’m most entertained by the fact that in some way, this all started with the tattered remains of the inside of Josh Howard’s knee.
Also,
I think we should recruit eclou and Rangers100 to become the investigative reporting arm of LSB.
They can join Miles' secret sources in Cincinnatti
Morality you can fake. Fun you either have or you don't.
I apologize for that.
I signed up to comment on the MLB payrolls thread, but there is a one-day waiting period on this site. When I came back a few days later, that thread was gone from the front page so I just clicked on the post at the top of the page. I didn’t read it, and I have no idea who Josh Howard is anyway. I just figured it was a Rangers-related post about some minor leaguer in our system that I had never heard of, so I just threw my question about Greenberg and the ownership deal in there.
Again, my bad. I’ve seen other threads here get way off-topic, so i didn’t realize this was a big deal.
It's not a big deal for threads to go off topic.
But seriously: you thought Josh Howard was a Rangers’ prospect, and you’d heard nothing about what was possibly the biggest deal to go down at the NBA trade deadline, and you couldn’t be bothered to read any of the comments about Howard, the deal, or his injury in that thread?
Sheesh.
And, in any event,
if you’ve read this site “for awhile,” wouldn’t it occur to you that this sort of definitive news about the sale, which has been reported nowhere else that I can find, might not be better put in a Fanshot or Fanpost?
No idea what a Fanshot or Fanpost is.
No idea who Howard is. Just figured it was some Rangers minor league and clicked on the thread to ask my question.
I’m repeating myself now and you clearly have no interest in the main discussion here other than to troll for me, so I’ll let you post your next 20 questions and duck out here.
Now, see, that's just disingenuous.
I’ve been quite up front and explicit about my interests in the main discussion. I’m certainly not “trolling for you,” whatever that means. (And you’re the one asking me personal questions and making personal asides.)
If the fact that you’re having trouble answering my questions leads you to duck them, that’s your choice.
Also, if you don't know
what a Fanshot or a Fanpost is? You should probably have figured it out before posting here. It’s common courtesy.
Actually
That’s not really how the discussion has gone. Sure, some here have just made sarcastic comments (and that’s fine), but some others have made genuine attempts to argue the case that Greenberg is putting in more than $3M. Some of the peripheral points have been informative as well.
MGB's below about GWB was a good point.
Also, I hadn’t considered how a $3M contribution could actually be all that was needed for a 5% stake, but the posts about that article from Grant made me think through that one.
"Peripheral" in that
neither of them answered – or moved us closer to the answer to – the main question of how much cash Greenberg is putting in.
Are you a lawyer or something?
You claim to know,
definitively and exactly, how much cash Greenberg is putting in.
Why would you be looking for an answer to a main question to which you claim to already know the answer?
And no, I’m not a lawyer. Far from it.
I think your claims are probably seen in the light
of previous LSB posters’ claims about having definitive inside information, not to mention the online personalities of those posters.
Might not be fair, but there you have it. And given your unwillingness to give us any more information about your sources… well, it’s kind of a dubious move to come on an Intertube forum and make definitive claims without being willing or able to back them up.
Especially since you seem to have joined LSB five days ago
with the intent purpose of advertising your inside information, in the form of a rhetorical question, in a thread about Josh Howard’s torn ACL.
I mean, if your information is so inside that you can’t reveal your source(s), why come on here and ask “Does anyone know why Greenberg is only contributing $3M to the deal for the Rangers?”
I don't know anyone here or any previous posters.
I have read the site for awhile but never signed up.
I’m not sure what your point is though. I’ve already said I understand why people would be skeptical of my claim. That’s fine.
I just think it is interesting how convinced some Rangers fans – and not just at this site – are that Greenberg is going to dramatically increase the payroll. I am a long-time Rangers fan, have no ties to the current ownership or management or anyone else with the organization, have nothing against Greenberg and Ryan, and I hope they bring scores of playoff runs and World Series titles. But I’m naturally skeptical of Obama-style “Change” blind fanaticism just because “[the incumbent] sucks.” So from the start I have not thought the new ownership team, whoever it ended up being, would change the payroll substantially. When I recently learned from someone familiar with the deal that Greenberg is only putting in $3M, it reinforced that belief, so, seeing the MLB payrolls thread around the same time, I signed up and asked about it.
Like I have said from the start of this discussion though, I am interested in learning what others here know about the deal.
But you're not interested. Not really.
I mean, if you’re to be believed, you came on here precisely to ask a question that, if your information is to be trusted, you had to know couldn’t be answered by anyone without a source equally or more inside as yours.
And yet if you’ve read the site “for awhile,” you also have to know that few if any folks here would have those sorts of sources.
So what’s the point? You’re giving the very distinct impression that you want to have an exchange with folks in order to make the point that they don’t have access to the information to which you do.
And I think there are quite a few of us who don't think
the sale is going to result in a drastically increased payroll.
(And that line certainly reinforces the suspicion that you’re Texas_Dawg’s latest incarnation.)
No idea who or what that is
but just going by what I have read.
The comments about increased payroll and Greenberg as a savior are frequent here. Do you really deny that?
I wrote what I meant.
And I still don’t understand why, if your intent was to point out to folks that the Greenberg-led ownership couldn’t be expected to increase the payroll, you’d decide to make that point by asking if anyone knew why Greenberg wasn’t putting in any more than $3 million.
First of all,
It’s hard to answer every one of your questions when you post 20 of them per minute and often in multiple posts. I’m trying to specifically address each one, but some I miss.
On my initial question, there are some very knowledgeable people here. Even Evan Grant and Jamey Newberg post here. I figured the Greenberg number might not be public, but I also thought it might very well be known or at least whispered among people who have followed the deal developments more closely than I have.
I'll try to type more slowly for you.
And certainly, I’ll do my best to post fewer than 20 questions per minute.
If the information is as confidential as you make it out to be, why in the name of Elwood Richard Quesada would Newberg or Grant post publicly about it here, in response to some guy calling himself “Rangers100”? And why, if you suspected they had that information, wouldn’t you just email them about it?
I think you're confusing people thinking Greenberg himself is going to raise payroll
with the Greenberg-led group might raise payroll.
Bob Simpson and Ray Davis put in a hell of alot more than $3M in this deal. They are the ones that would be funding any increase — not Greenberg. That has been apparent from the very beginning.
"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan
by Dirk Diggler on Feb 28, 2010 12:11 AM CST up reply actions
I haven't done that.
My reason for not thinking the payroll will increase much is because the Rangers payrolls of recent years were already around break-even, at best. That’s why Hicks was having to toss in more of his own money as late as 2008 and early 2009 for HSG loans. The club clearly wasn’t profitable, even at the lower payroll.
If this were a better economy, sure, Simpson and Davis would probably take some bigger losses to win and hopefully drive the club’s value higher to get their money back later. But like I said before, those days are gone for now.
Wait, so you initially brought up Greenberg only putting in $3M as an entrance into a discussion about raising payrolls or not when Greenberg's contribution really has no effect on that one way or the other yet you have been harping on that. Awesome.
"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan
by Dirk Diggler on Feb 28, 2010 12:22 AM CST up reply actions
Leads you to suspect
that his reason for bringing up Greenberg’s contribution wasn’t actually to raise the question of payroll, doesn’t it?
I'm just glad my one snarky comment led to this great sub-thread
"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan
by Dirk Diggler on Feb 28, 2010 12:28 AM CST up reply actions
Who said it really has no effect?
I was just answering your question about “confusing people thinking Greenberg himself is going to raise payroll with the Greenberg-led group might raise payroll.”
It is interesting to note though that after being one of the first people here to claim Greenberg is putting up much more than $3M, you appear to have given up on trying to defend that claim.
That's because there's no point in arguing it
I don’t have any inside sources — you do. You win, apparently.
I don’t really care.
"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan
by Dirk Diggler on Feb 28, 2010 12:39 AM CST up reply actions
sure thing
"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan
by Dirk Diggler on Feb 28, 2010 12:48 AM CST up reply actions
all I can say is
“hey look at what was reported in the media”
and you say “well the media is wrong because I know people”
How are we supposed to have a legitimate discussion about this?
"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan
by Dirk Diggler on Feb 28, 2010 12:50 AM CST up reply actions
Some pretty big assumptions
- what “break-even” revenue for the Rangers has been in “recent years”, and how it is derived
- the source, motivation and fact of increased debt levels and/or increased contributions by Tom Hicks to HSG
Frankly, until a team uses a credible, independent, outside auditor to, in effect, open the books, I don’t place a lot of credibility into any claims made. Just search for some of the articles about the McCourts finances (owners of the Dodgers, going through a divorce) to see an example of some of the manipulations that are possible.
It's definitely a guessing game that
requires a lot of assumptions, but I think the fact Hicks had to loan that much money to the Rangers in 2007-early 2009 shows the club wasn’t very profitable, if at all. How else would you explain his having to loan the club that much money?
it doesn't matter what we've read
he knows people.
"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan
by Dirk Diggler on Feb 28, 2010 12:51 AM CST up reply actions
See,
That’s cute and funny and all, but that’s a good example of why I don’t think you know much about finance.
Also, the little calculation you made in the original thread about Nolan Ryan’s stake in the team was what I would expect of one who knows next to nothing about finance.
Pardon me
… if I don’t accept Hicks public statements at face value. For one, if he were loaning money to the club, he would in all likelihood be loaning money to HSG, not the Rangers. Also, if he has been loaning money to HSG, does that make him one of the creditors to whom HSG owes money? Part of the $525 million in debt? Separate?
HSG had/has a large debt which has to be serviced. It’s entirely possible that the Rangers and/or the Stars are generating operating profits, but the cost of the debt is greater than the profits they generate.
From what I've read,
Hicks was repaid in full for his $85 million loan ~ which, again based on what I’ve read, was (as you note) to HSG, not the Rangers.
And your point’s mine, exactly: the fact that HSG is unable to make payments on its debt does not imply that the Rangers haven’t been turning a profit in recent yers.
When I was talking about profitability and
breaking even, I was including interest payments.
And where do you think HSG’s debt primarily came from? Sure, some of the $85M (or whatever the number was) may have been for the Stars, but it probably wasn’t even a majority of it. For one thing NHL has a salary cap and much lower payrolls.
That doesn't mean the Rangers
haven’t been profitable over the last few years.
In fact, I believe Hicks himself described the Rangers as profitable in a radio appearance a couple years back.
HSG debt
And where do you think HSG’s debt primarily came from?
Purchase of the clubs. Payrolls at some point that exceeded what revenues would support (i.e., “the ARod years”). Using “creative accounting” to leverage HSG assets to support other activities or purchases (i.e., Liverpool). All IMHO, of course.
So then there is this...
Which shows the Rangers operating income the last 10 years. Looks like the Rangers have been making money the last 5 years. Far from losing money or breaking even at best as you call it.
And this is from a reliable source, not just “someone I know”. Tangible Proof from Forbes
"grilled cheese punches like a bitch" -Gdawg
"i feel like k-rod after a save." -by reagan on Jan 23, 2010, that glorious day Hicks was out of our lives.
Several problems there.
1) That’s EBITDA. If the Rangers are paying, say, 5% annually on $450M of debt, that’s $22.5M in interest annually, putting all of those numbers in the red (except for 2006 which would be right around break-even).
2) Forbes’s guess is as good as any given the time and resources they put into the project, but even they have to do a lot of estimating as they are not given the books to every MLB team.
3) They came up with a $405M valuation for the Rangers in April 2009. Less than 1 year later, the Rangers are being sold for what most reports say is well over over $100M more than that. That’s a pretty huge valuation miss by Forbes.
HSG owns the Rangers.
Some of the debt is tied to the Stars which is why I used $450M and not the full $525M debt HSG is reported to have.
Call it $350M if you’d like then. Either way, if the EBITDA numbers Forbes has are correct, then the Rangers aren’t making much money, if any, after interest payments.
And that gets to the problem with the new owners not taking off much of the debt, if that’s the case (which $3M buying a 5% stake would confirm).
If the Rangers were making money,
then you were off in claiming that “the Rangers payrolls of recent years were already around break-even, at best” ~ correct?
As for the last statement, I’ll repeat: do you have any empirical evidence, past or present, for the claim that the managing partner’s direct investment is correlated with the overall financial dynamics of the ownership group?
LOL.
I figured an answer would only invite 20 more questions about nothing.
If the Rangers were making money,
then you were off in claiming that "the Rangers payrolls of recent years were already around break-even, at best" ~ correct?
Wow.
OK, you may not be a lawyer, but I think we can safely rule out anything having to do with finance as well.
Have fun, dude.
Again with the pointless ad hominems.
And the fatuous exaggerations.
The fact that you can’t or won’t answer my questions does not mean they’re “about nothing.”
Again, your argument that the Rangers were not profitable seems to be based on your own speculation, and, again, if I recall correctly, Hicks himself claimed the Rangers were profitable a couple years back.
And you claim Forbes underestimated
the Rangers’ value, so why would you accept its EBITDA estimates for the club?
Solutions:
The Rangers should not be paying the interest on that debt, HSG will be. So the Rangers are still operating in the black.
2. I trust Forbes alot more than you and your inside sourse.
3. The $405M is after the 2008 season. It is very plausible that the Rangers would be valued over $500M by Forbes if they did a report for this year.
I find how you question the validity of the sources I bring forth, yet expect us to trust and believe your facts from you and your source. Can you explain that to me?
"grilled cheese punches like a bitch" -Gdawg
"i feel like k-rod after a save." -by reagan on Jan 23, 2010, that glorious day Hicks was out of our lives.
x
The Rangers should not be paying the interest on that debt, HSG will be. So the Rangers are still operating in the black.
Huh? How does that work?
The $405M is after the 2008 season. It is very plausible that the Rangers would be valued over $500M by Forbes if they did a report for this year.
Ha. OK.
Isn't it obvious
That this is Texas_Dawg?
by brettgardner on Feb 27, 2010 11:23 PM CST up reply actions
I worry that you're right,
but I’m hoping you’re not.
Because as cold and lonely as it might well be in Ithaca right now, that would still be a pathetic cry for help.
I'm also interested in where the $260 million figure comes from.
I’d read that the sale price less $390 million would take the form of assumed liabilities, but that doesn’t tell us how much of the total purchase price stems from borrowing, right?
On the $260M number:
Is this what you are referring to? Evan Grant (and others have reported similar numbers):
Reportedly, at least one creditor is upset that there is only $250 million coming back to the banks, which is less than half of the $525 million loan on which Hicks Sports Group defaulted. First thought, wow, that’s not very much of the loan to be repaid. Second thought, it’s not that big of a deal. The payment on which HSG defaulted was a $10 million interest-only payment, so the banks weren’t demanding full repayment of the loan at the time. Second, and perhaps most important, is the structure of the deal. My understanding is that Rangers Baseball Express will be assuming some of HSG’s baseball-related debt; Hicks will be distributing up to $250 million in cash to the lenders and finally there is the matter that all $525 million is not Rangers-related debt. There is a significant amount that was incurred by the Stars. Hicks will still own the Stars and some of the debt will likely be moved to their books. I’m not entirely sure of what I’m saying, except that I believe the $250 million cash return doesn’t means the banks will be stuck eating close to $300 million.
This does not necessarily mean the Rangers will have $250M less debt. It just means the HSG creditors are receiving $250M. But that could be, and I would guess most likely is, coming from new lenders that the Greenberg group has arranged.
Don't know what the relevant numbers are
But don’t have much, if any, confidence that the ones in your example are correct, either.
On a certain level, it would be interesting to know more details about how the new ownership group is structured (how much debt, capital contributed and in what form, ownership percentages, etc). Being a private group (as opposed to a public company with disclosure requirements), I suspect we may never get such information in detail unless a legal matter of some sort results in relevant documents/testimony becoming public.
In the abstract, it’s possible that Greenberg and Ryan are due to receive ownership percentages that are larger in proportion than their capital contribution. Being the “managing partner” and “club president” (I don’t know that these are the correct titles) and actively contributing to running the club’s day-to-day operations may earn them some “sweat equity” in the business (also may explain the “vesting” which you were inquiring about previously). I seem to recall that Bush had a similar deal in a previous ownership group, although I don’t recall anything about “vesting” in his ownership percentage.
GWB
His initial stake was only $500,000 (1.5% at the time).
It’s not the end of the world to have a managing partner owning only a small percentage of the club. But I don’t think it bodes well for this idea many seam to have that Greenberg’s group is going to dramatically increase the payroll.
In this economic environment owners are done running up major deficits in attempt to win, trusting they will bank on increased values to their club they can cash out later. Those days are gone for the foreseeable future.
Time will tell
It’s a legitimate question as to how much, and under what circumstances, the new ownership group would be willing to increase payroll. There have been some questions asked in this regard so far, but the answers have been sufficiently vague (appropriately so). We’ll see once the new group is approved and over time as opportunities present themselves (trade, signing, new contract, etc).
I don’t really see the connection though between the level of up-front capital contributed by a minority (albeit, managing) partner and the level of payroll the team will be willing to take on in the future. The cash flow (affected by debt and debt service obligations), reserves, and ability of the group to raise new funds (new capital or new debt) will be much more relevant factors.
OK.
Thanks for the serious and intelligent responses, mgb. It’s obvious you are much more mature and knowledgeable about finance than Dirk and Snark. Makes for better discussion.
I don’t really see the connection though between the level of up-front capital contributed by a minority (albeit, managing) partner and the level of payroll the team will be willing to take on in the future. The cash flow (affected by debt and debt service obligations), reserves, and ability of the group to raise new funds (new capital or new debt) will be much more relevant factors.
Agreed that the things you list are more relevant. But I do think it is more likely that the payroll would be increased if the person motivated enough to have put the deal together was a majority owner or wealthy enough to finance some losses for awhile.
But like you say, time will tell.
In my experience,
maturity is most clearly reflected in a person’s ability to stick to the topic at hand, and not resort to ad hominem remarks.
And so, sticking to my guns: do you have any empirical basis ~ current or historical ~ for your argument about the relationship between payroll and the direct investment of the managing partner?
I've been trying to get him to provide some for the last two days.
He has nothing. It is quite frustrating. There is at least an attempt to have a decent discussion, but nothing but empty claims are being brought to the table.
"grilled cheese punches like a bitch" -Gdawg
"i feel like k-rod after a save." -by reagan on Jan 23, 2010, that glorious day Hicks was out of our lives.
I'm more entertained than frustrated.
So far as I can tell, his approach has been fairly transparent, and he certainly gets annoyed when he’s called on it. If he’s not Texas Dawg, he seems like a close relative…
Huh?
I’ve directly and specifically answered your questions, and I’ve answered that particular questions several times already.
I don't have problem with you answers.
I have issue with your lack of being able to show substance behind your claims and scenearios. The only thing I’ve seen you use was Grant’s statement about Nolan having a later vesting 5% share of the team. That was a point that someone from the board brought to the table and one you initially downplayed as probably not being 100% authentic from Grant. You then made a statement about not being able to trust Ryan bases on his dealings with the “kooky Purke family”.
I’ve been providing links from credible sources that back up any claim I’ve been trying to make. I have strayed from dealing with assumptions or claims from my friends.
You are claiming something as fact and you need to be able to back it up with showing us how we can consider it fact. That’s what I’ve been asking and that is what you have failed to do.
"grilled cheese punches like a bitch" -Gdawg
"i feel like k-rod after a save." -by reagan on Jan 23, 2010, that glorious day Hicks was out of our lives.
x
I don’t have problem with you answers.
OK. You just said you did though. I can only respond to what you post.
The only thing I’ve seen you use was Grant’s statement about Nolan having a later vesting 5% share of the team. That was a point that someone from the board brought to the table and one you initially downplayed as probably not being 100% authentic from Grant.
I didn’t say it wasn’t “authentic.” I just pointed out that it is fairly vague and oddly worded. And later I actually gave you specific numbers showing how it’s not necessarily contradictory with Greenberg’s $3M stake. What is the problem?
I’ve been providing links from credible sources that back up any claim I’ve been trying to make.
And I appreciate that. But I’ve also explained why what you’ve linked doesn’t necessarily say what you think it does. (Such as the operating income numbers leaving out the debt payments.)
Where did I say I had a problem with your answers?
I have a problem with you claiming you answers are fact and not supporting them with claims other than “me and my source”.
And you still have not shown any other shred of evidence backing up your claim of fact other than veiled assumptions and what if’s.
Cut, paste, and answer this:
Show me something other than a what if, assumption, or “my source” that shows that Greenberg is only putting in $3Mil into this deal.
If you can’t, then I’m afraid I’m done discussing this with you.
"grilled cheese punches like a bitch" -Gdawg
"i feel like k-rod after a save." -by reagan on Jan 23, 2010, that glorious day Hicks was out of our lives.
This is the most pointless argument in the history of the world.
by Black Francis on Feb 28, 2010 9:48 AM CST up reply actions
Yes it can be.
Freude, schoener Goetterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische dein Heiligtum.
Is too.
'Waiting for a girl and she gets me into fights
Waiting for a girl we get drunk on Friday night'
Almost
isn’t the same thing as “is”, though.
Freude, schoener Goetterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische dein Heiligtum.
Depends on
what your definition of ‘is’ is. /WJC
'Waiting for a girl and she gets me into fights
Waiting for a girl we get drunk on Friday night'
But it could be
Freude, schoener Goetterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische dein Heiligtum.
I actually have a degree in finance and I work as a financial analyst
and I have worked on M&A activities. But, go ahead and continue with the thinking that since you know a guy who told you what Greenberg’s contribution is that you know more about finance than me.
"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan
by Dirk Diggler on Feb 28, 2010 12:41 AM CST up reply actions
+ 1 Good for you Evan Grant!
If the Rangers don't make the play-offs this year I'm gonna go all Epic Bearded Man on your ass.
I'll play you a sad song on my tiny violin if you like
Not mediocre. Right about average
by trza on Feb 26, 2010 9:24 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
Your fanpost
is at least as bad as what you claim Grant is doing. Hey, look what Grant is doing, isn’t it terrible?
Freude, schoener Goetterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische dein Heiligtum.
Ugh
What a stupid post on several levels.
"I don’t know how these SN blog authors get their gigs, but I’m frankly surprised SN tolerates AJM’s lack of effort." Tex34
Neftali Feliz says sit your 5 dollar ass down before he makes change...
Grant has a pretty solid track record.
And it’s not a problem that he presents the players with the story before getting their reaction. I’m sure Grant wasn’t showing them the quote, then saying, “He’s a douchebag, isn’t he?!” His job is to write a story – not from his viewpoint, but from the players’ viewpoint, hence having to make sure they know what he’s even talking about before he can get a reaction. He’s a beat writer, not a columnist.
Jezebel
From Dictionary.com
Jez·e·bel
/ˈdʒɛzəˌbɛl, -bəl/ Show Spelled[jez-uh-bel, -buhl] Show IPA
–noun
1.
Also, Douay Bible, Jez·a·bel. the wife of Ahab, king of Israel. I Kings 16:31.
2.
(often lowercase) a wicked, shameless woman.
Has EG gotten a sex change I hadn’t heard about or is the original poster a complete fucking idiot?
"I don't condone steroids or any other type of growth hormones or anything else, but I could care less, and, for the most part, I don't think the fans give a (bleep). The people that care about it are the people that probably don't like baseball," - Jim Leyland
look up "self-deprecation" next DJ and think about how it applies to your post
we're from Texas
CJ says "Relax"
Look up "axe to grind"
and it might describe every one of our posts.
Freude, schoener Goetterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische dein Heiligtum.
by t ball on Feb 26, 2010 10:42 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
our
that should be your.
Freude, schoener Goetterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische dein Heiligtum.
Look up "fucking idiot"
and see how it applies to all your posts.
"I don't condone steroids or any other type of growth hormones or anything else, but I could care less, and, for the most part, I don't think the fans give a (bleep). The people that care about it are the people that probably don't like baseball," - Jim Leyland
by DJCahill on Feb 26, 2010 10:46 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
And who the hell says Jezebel anymore anyway?
Did his schoolmarm teach him that word?
"I don’t know how these SN blog authors get their gigs, but I’m frankly surprised SN tolerates AJM’s lack of effort." Tex34
Neftali Feliz says sit your 5 dollar ass down before he makes change...
by Brian Thomas on Feb 26, 2010 3:32 PM CST up reply actions
Well, they still make songs about it, at least in country music.
Pretty easy on the eyes as well…
"grilled cheese punches like a bitch" -Gdawg
"i feel like k-rod after a save." -by reagan on Jan 23, 2010, that glorious day Hicks was out of our lives.
Lauryn Hill- 'Doo Wop'
Now that was the sin that did Jezebel in
Who you gon’ tell when the repercussions spin
Showing off your ass ‘cause you’re thinking it’s a trend
Girlfriend, let me break it down for you again
You know I only say it ‘cause I’m truly genuine
Don’t be a hardrock when you’re really a gem
Babygirl, respect is just a minimum
Shit, that’s over a decade old.
'Waiting for a girl and she gets me into fights
Waiting for a girl we get drunk on Friday night'
In "Caves of Steel"...
…by Isaac Asimov, the fact that the protagonist has a wife named Jezebel is a key plot point.
by Adam J. Morris on Feb 26, 2010 6:31 PM CST up reply actions
Also:
If Grant (or another reporter) didn’t ask the rest of the team about their reactions to Wilson’s comments, folks here would go back and forth for months (if not years) arguing about whether those comments had hurt the team’s chemistry, made Wilson a bad teammate, etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseaum, and someone would eventually ask why there wasn’t a journalist covering the Rangers with the testicular fortitude to ask Wilson’s teammates what they thought about his complaints.
So at least that very last bit’s out of the way.
it's not like we got a report from grant about what the team thought
but i bet we would have if they had something bad to say about wilson
I think some are missing the point
It’s not a given that Wilson’s comments are a story. To some, they are a story because they implicate current teammates but I think you have to read into them a bit to get there.
So when Grant seeks reaction from players, he is taking an active step in deciding this is a story that he needs to report about. It’s not like CJ got drunk and hit a teammate and Grant HAS to ask about it. I think Grant could have easily ignored them and nobody would be asking why DMN coverage of the Rangers is so shoddy.
And the reason he asked is because, by now, Grant has this perception of CJ that he pops off at the mouth and alienates teammates and if there is a chance that teammates might think the comments are divisive, he better go and ask because they probably do.
Seems to me this tracks pretty well, all be it to a lesser magnitude, with TO and Ed Werder. Both times, I was in the camp of the reporter not exacerbating problems. There’s no way a guy can ever get away from past labels if anything that can be slightly seen as divisive gets storied to death. But at the very least, I don’t think CJ has done enough in his career where you automatically assume he’s a divisive person in the clubhouse.
But this fanpost blows. Jezebel. Idiot.
Slow news days
means reporters gotta come up with something to write about. That’s the reason stories like this get reported all the time. It’s also the reason smart ballplayers recite the Bull Durham cliches, like MY always does.
"I don't condone steroids or any other type of growth hormones or anything else, but I could care less, and, for the most part, I don't think the fans give a (bleep). The people that care about it are the people that probably don't like baseball," - Jim Leyland
if feliz had said this
people would have reported it. but i have to doubt that a reporter would go around getting comments from teammates about it.
I've responded to this higher up in the thread
So, if you are looking for my response, it’s up at the top part of the thread.
So now we have reports about our reporters??
It’s a crazy world out there I tell ya…
"Big whoop, wanna fight about it?"
I do find it pretty interesting
and somewhat cool, that we have this kind of access to the beat writer at the DMN.
Wow, who gives a fuck.
"Sometimes you just want to sit back and watch somebody throw 100." - Jeff Passan on Neftali Feliz
"Baseball's all that's real" - JB
So I looked into eclou's history
Not including this post and his comments, of his previous 14 comments 11 dealt with CJ. This person is unnaturally obsessed with him. Wails doesn’t talk about Blalock this much (or blatantly make shit up).
"You promised me, Eckstein, that if I followed you, you would walk with me always. But I noticed that during the most trying periods of my life, there have only been one set of prints in the sand. Why, when I have needed you most, have you not been there for me?" David Eckstein replied, "Because my little legs had gotten tired, and you were carrying me." And I looked down and saw that I was still carrying David Eckstein.
Then he grounded out weakly to second.
Now it's all starting to piece together
"Big whoop, wanna fight about it?"
by lost in space on Feb 26, 2010 7:18 PM CST up reply actions
or IS him
If the Rangers don't make the play-offs this year I'm gonna go all Epic Bearded Man on your ass.
It's possible but it would be disappointing
Eclou’s comments about CJ are very, very positive. When the Rangers signed Oliver he mentioned how $3.55M was a bargain since CJ signed for $3.1M (stupid point given it was arbitration) and stated the Oliver signing meant CJ was a “lock” for the rotation.
It’d be really creepy if CJ created a sockpuppet to brag about himself. Really creepy.
"You promised me, Eckstein, that if I followed you, you would walk with me always. But I noticed that during the most trying periods of my life, there have only been one set of prints in the sand. Why, when I have needed you most, have you not been there for me?" David Eckstein replied, "Because my little legs had gotten tired, and you were carrying me." And I looked down and saw that I was still carrying David Eckstein.
Then he grounded out weakly to second.
it's not CJ
Eclou has posted plenty of comments in the GDTs. I do think after reading through some of his history that he does know CJ though. If that’s true I wonder if CJ is happy this is out here.
eclou
is catching a lot of well deserved flack over this. However, he brings up a point that a lot of us probably agree in part with. EG, has probably taken his “feud” with CJ a bit too far. The jabs are tossed quite often and mostly not necessary. I know EG is trying to be funny at times, but it’s a bit overdone IMO.
Still love what EG does. No writer is perfect, and I think he’s one of the best beat writers I’ve seen in the four major metropolitan areas I’ve lived in.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
