First off, I was visiting Hardball Talk and ran across a nice piece going over the recent “Twitter spat” between one baseball pundit I admire (Buster Olney) and one whom I most certainly do NOT (Jon Heyman):
As we noted yesterday, Jon Heyman took the curious tack of accusing the Red Sox of being cheap or small market or something and suspecting that the team owners are spending money on their soccer interests or whatever. It was fairly silly, and no shortage of bloggers have weighed in on just how silly it is.
But it’s not just the bloggers. Buster Olney took to Twitter this morning to tear that line of reasoning to shreds.
He later said in reply to another person that “The Red Sox have made mistakes in the past, but they can’t be accused of being cheap.” Which is 100% correct.
I find this all rather interesting, simply because it’s so rare that you see two of the big name baseball columnists in direct disagreement like this. But it’s not just interesting for gossipy purposes.
In its’ own right this is nothing unusual. One of the bigger upsides of Twitter and the “blogosphere” is that it allows writers and pundits to interact directly with one another, often rather quickly. Ideas are tossed around, giving a thorough examination by many and often discounted or endorsed in lightning speed.
Typically this is done rather civilly. Unless it involves one Jon Heyman of CBS, a.k.a. Scott Boras’s puppet. Then it’s handled in a rather douchey kind of way. Just ask Evan Grant of the Dallas Morning News.
He tweeted yesterday that Heyman had blocked him on Twitter for nothing more than his criticism of Heyman’s idiotic conclusion that the Boston Red Sox, with their record payroll (third highest in baseball) were being “cheap”. The best part of it is the reply from Hardball Talk‘s Craig Calcaterra mentioning he too is a member of that not-so-exclusive club of baseball writers that Heyman has blocked for this offense.
L. Seven. Weenie.