|
In a post for NJ.com, Dan Graziano relays details of the heated exchange he has with Carlos Delgado’s agent, David Sloane regarding Delgado’s contract terms.
Graziano, writes back to Sloane:
“The Mets are paying Delgado $12 million in salary this year plus a $4 million buyout on his 2009 option…I won’t hold my breath waiting for your apology”
To which Sloane replied:
“Apologize this retard, he’s making 16 this year WITH an option for next year or a buyout at 4. Nice research by you but then I guess that whole concept of fact finding escapes you huh? They didn’t teach that on the short bus did they?”
…i’m almost speechless…how can someone who represents a professional athlete act like this…
…and sloane, last time i checked, they don’t start teaching until after you get off the bus, i’m just saying…
 |
 |
 |
RSS 2.0 Both comments and pings are currently closed.
The worst part is that what Graziano said is entirely accurate. The Mets ARE paying Delgado $12 million this year with the Marlins paying the other $4 million in his salary as per the trade agreement.
you hit the nail on the head, Danny. What a weird story.
A heavy part of an Agent’s buisness is based on reputation. It’s one of many ways an Agent picks up clients. So as an Agent you don’t want the contract numbers botched to make people think the player is making less money then he actually is.
Now with that said though, Sloane was completely unprofessional about it and should have been alot more respectful. But I can certaintly see why he would be upset when the media is misrepresenting a contract that his client signed because it doesn’t make him look as good to potential future clients.
However, Graziano isn’t right either because he misrepresented the facts. The least Graziano should have done is specifically mentioned that the Marlins are paying a chunk of his salary in the original article.
It’s not necessary to mention that because it doesn’t really pertain to the Mets. That’s my guess as to why he left it out.
I don’t agree. That’s nitpicking. Graziano was entirely accurate and if Sloane was worried about the story influencing Delgado’s future market value he’s totally nuts. The only thing that will influence Delgado’s market value is his bat.
It wasn’t as much Delgado’s market value as much as he would be concerned about it affecting his ability to pick up future clients. There’s a big difference between 12 and 16 million in any potential client’s eyes.
If you don’t think players around the game don’t know what everyone else is making, you’re nuts. It’s public knowledge.
and i don’t think too many professional players are trolling nj.com looking for an agent or hoping to track salaries. though some might be checking out this story now.
agreed. the blog post in question had one significant omission which made the $12 million assertion incorrect; and apparently judging by the below post was wrong about the no-trade contract. a simple correction was the way to go after truth was verified, imo. and none of the emails either way were very professional.
It’s just another prime example of what’s wrong with Baseball and sports in general today. These agents are as arrogant as they come and don’t think it doesn’t also influence the players attitude towards their “percepion” of their market value. It’s a business first and the game comes in a distant second.
He’s like a 13 year old troll.
Seriously, at the end, he actually tries to diss Graziano’s mom. So ridiculous.
Are we sure he doesn’t post on MetsBlog? His writing style reminds me of a few friends on this site…
Graziano is just like a sleazy paparazzi engaging a celebrity in confrontation in order to sell a picture.
You’re nuttier than Sloane and so is your mom!
Sheds a little additional light on the negotiations (2005? I’m slow on a Monday morning) in which Delgado went to the Marlins after a supposed “slight” from Tony Bernazard and the Mets.
Not saying it didn’t happen just as told, but it seems a lot more possible that wires got crossed with this genius as a middleman.
Yikes.
Supposedly the Mets offered Delgado a similar deal that the Marlins offered and gave him a deadline. After hearing this, Sloane publicly announced that the Mets dropped out of the negotiations. Minaya called Sloane back and “re-entered” the negotiations, with Delgado accepting the Marlins offer the next day. It was then when Sloane publicly said that Delgado was upset with the latin angle Minaya and Bernazard tried to play.
Yeah, that’s accurate. I also remember something about Sloane sending bizarre e-mails out to the New York media weeks and weeks after Delgado had signed with the Marlins. Wasn’t he also responsible for the Al Leiter thing? (Announcing to the media that Al Leiter had personally warned Delgado against playing for the Mets because of Mike and the Mad Dog or something like that…)
you know what’s really funny about all this?
delgado didn’t want to sign with the mets because of tony bernazard’s perceived unprofessionalism!
wow.
i’ll also go out on a limp and suggest that perhaps carlos delgado will be his last client.
also, doesn’t it make you wonder how delgado chose this joker as his agent?
“i’ll also go out on a limp…”
Luis Castillo?
This would’ve never happened if Delgado had Bean Stringfellow as his agent.
Be careful Regis…Sloane will come in here and start calling you names too!!
The whole exchange is priceless. My day is so much better for having read it… and I’m not being ironic. I may be a loser, but at least I’m not Sloane.
Sometimes I struggle with a lack of self-confidence, wondering if I have what it takes “out there,” if my degree will be worth the paper it’s printed on, if I am just wasting my money and my time. How will I stack up compared to “them?”
Then I read something like this, and I realize everything is going to be alright.
David Sloane and Buzz Bissinger must be good buddies
“so’s your mom”… i love it. on mothers’ day, no less!
Regis, you obviously don’t check your facts! I was on the short bus, and they definitely teach lessons on it.
My name was supposed to say David Sloane. That sucked.
Nice effort lol
now everyone knows that Casey S. rides the short bus!
So the Willie confidence poll is back? Funny how it disappears after losses.
What are you talking about? Its been there for quite a few days, if not longer…AND it’s at 58% It’s not like it is glorifying the guy or something. Sheesh, people just like to complain about SOMETHING.
I like to look at exactly how many people vote 1, how many people vote 2, and so on and so forth. I think it’s a lot more imformative than just the percentage we get at the end. When you see the tally for each individual number you can do a lot more meaningful interpretation.
Why? The percentage of irrational fans that are pressing 1 and 2 isn’t indicative of the fan base as a whole….just indicative of how many irrational fans there are.
OK, so how do you know how many “irrational fans” were a part of the “58%” reading? With the individual tallies you can chose to ignore that segment of the voting population. That type of thing is what I was referring to. Hell, I’d go so far as to ignore the 9’s and 10’s, too. Just as irrational IMO. But no matter how you feel about Willie, the “58%” really doesn’t tell you that much about what happened in the poll.
It disappeared as a post-every-game yes-no question, and reappeared as a less-frequent, scale-of-1-to-10 question in an attempt to make it less a case of ‘did we win last night’ and more a case of ‘is Willie making the right moves’, as Matt explained when he first took it down.
I believe Matt’s intention is to put up the poll after every series. No need to look for conspiracies here.
Although I suspect the poll would more closely match Matt’s intention if it only appeared after wins, since the voters in polls on this site have shown that they’re more likely to blame Willie for a loss than credit him for a win.
Anyone whose opinion of Randolph is swayed in either direction by nothing greater than the latest game would be doing a service by abstaining from the vote.
Amen to that.
Ahhh, I’m mean it’s kind of funny, but who really cares? Delgado’s not going to be on the Mets next year anyhow. Does anybody here doubt that he’ll get bought out for the $4 million?
The question is, who IS going to play first base for us next year? You know Hank is going to make sure they sign Texiera after losing out on Johan this year.
I dunno…I think Hank will have his sights set on a pitcher first, i.e. C.C. Sabathia.
And guys, lets not forget- The Mets have significant dollars coming of fthe payroll this year, in Pedro, Delgado, and Alou, among others. Yes, we will see salary increases for Beltran/Wright/Reyes/Johan. However, not only are the Mets bringing in more profit than any other team (as per Forbes latest baseball analysis, the Mets turned the highest profit of any team last year, while the Yanks were in the red…Also, the Mets stake in SNY is worth $1.5Billion (!!!). The team has got cash, and a willingness to spend it. Plus, they are mobing to a new stadium, and their right field porch would be good for Tex. So while it definitely won’t be a slam dunk, lets not count the Mets out of the running for Tex just yet.
I think it appears every Monday. He was doing it after every series which was too frequent. So once a week on the same day makes sense. Nothing funny about that.
While I agree that what Graziano wrote was accurate, it was accurate to the letter of the law, but not the spirit. What Sloane seemed to be objecting to was that it didn’t paint an accurate picture of Delgado’s compensation (as an agent, he probably wants other players to know exactly how Delgado is compensated), and perhaps Graziano’s reporting is more inaccurate than we know since neither Sloane cleared up the perceived inaccuracy, nor did Graziano give any indication of following up on the terms of Delgado’s contract.
What seems interesting is Graziano also does not fully disclose whether he is sharing the e-mails verbatim or his cut and paste job of them. At any rate, Sloane’s e-mails are combative, but do not seem to contain anything insulting to Garziano. It is Graziano who is the first to insult Sloane:
“Real classy and helpful. Thanks. If you can’t tell me what I got wrong, I will assume I got it right and you’re just living down to your reputation. As I understand it, he makes $16 mil this year and the Marlins pay $4 mil of it.”
Once egged on to apologize to Gaziano, Sloane retaliates with insults. And Graziano turns this into a story. This is bush league journalism – journalists are not part of the story, but Graziano has made himself part of it. He and The Star Ledge should be embarrassed and, I think, owe Sloane an apology.
Exactly my thoughts!
Agreed. The agent (Sloane) misinterpreted Graziano’s column and questioned his sources, but Sloane takes the low road here. He turns a meaningless exchange into a full-blown argument, and then backstabs the agent further by printing it as a story. The agent is clearly an a**, but you’d expect higher standards from a “journalist”.
Reread the exchange again. The first insult was hurled by Sloan, when Graziano asked him how it was wrong, he was told to tell his unreliable sources to look it up again. Thats pretty damn insulting to a journalist. Especially when its the response to an innocent question. From someone who’s supposed to be a professional. Not that Graziano’s later responses didnt egg him on, but Sloan started it(as childish as that seems).
So, it’s an insult to call a journalist’s sources unreliable? I would be surprised if there is a journalist alive who has not been accused of having an unreliable source – it’s not an insult, it’s part of the job. If it is an insult, it is one which would roll off anyone’s back except for the thinnest skinned.
Yes, it is an insult because he’s more or less calling Graziano unprofessional for relying on unreliable sources.
Disagree. It was sloane who first turned insulting with this snotty reply:
“Ask your unreliable sources to look it up again.”
Sloane was nitpicking and being combative from the start. You don’t need a journalist’s story to inform others around the game what Delgado is really making. And, as for Delgado’s future market value, only his bat will determine that.
Also, Graziano wrote this in his blog. Not as part of the sports news or standard commentary. We all know blogs allow journalists greater freedom which almost all of them take full advantage of.
All mainstream journalism is bush-league these days. That’s not an excuse – that’s the way it is.
Sloane is owed no apology, but Graziano doesn’t deserve to be called a retard, no matter how bad his journalism is.
Delgado’s compensation wasn’t the point- at least not exactly. The point was how much he was being paid BY THE METS. And Graziano reported that accurately.
Amazing. I’m stunned that a supposed professional would act no better than an anonymous troll on a public forum.
IIRC, when Delgado was in negotiations with the Mets and Marlins, Sloane would send all sorts of emails to journalists with lots of bizarre statements about the Mets and his client, and he was the butt of a lot of jokes and trashing at that time by both Mets fans and the NY media. He’s seriously unhinged.
It does call into question why Delgado would choose someone like this.
Just want to say I have the highest regard for Graziano. He’s one of the most unheralded writers in the NY media. His ideas are usually interesting and rarely, if ever, unsound or agenda-driven. I’ve found him to be accurate and unbiased. And technically, his writing is solid as well. I always enjoy reading his columns.
regardless of that, this shouldn’t be a story. he may be in the right about the information but he really has no business publishing private communication. it is a HUGE conflict of interest.
It’s not an official story. As I wrote above, Graziano put it in his blog. It’s not a part of the official sports news and commentary.
Take a look at all the journalists’ blogs these days. They all stray into personal opinions and matters out of the ordinary in their blogs.
The communication was in regards to an official story he wrote as part of his job. There is no conflict of interest that I see.
i don’t agree that journalist’s blogs somehow fall outside of the sphere of their professional ethics. they are still journalists and should be expected to keep themselves out of the stories.
it’s pretty debatable i’ll admit, but i just think if journalists can use their positions to blow up petty squabbles, the potential for abuse is great.
(none of this excuses sloane, who is a giant moron)
I did not say blogs fall outside the “sphere of their professional ethics.” I just said they often stray from the ordinary and expected.
As I said, this is not an official story. Even if it were, journalists often bring personal commentary and opinion into an official story. Injecting personal opinions and commentary is not unethical.
Also, as I said — and this is important — the whole thing revolves around the disputed accuracy of one of Graziano’s official stories. So it is relevant, IMO.
sloane did not publicly dispute the story. so this exchange could have been handled privately.
also, this goes WAY beyond “injecting personal commentary and opinion.” graziano published a private communication for the sole purpose of calling someone an idiot.
When someone supposedly in the know takes issue with the accuracy of what is an official story, then I think it’s fair game for Graziano to write about it — whether or not that person made their issues known publicly or not.
Because eventually, issues like this could crop up again, so now Graziano has more or less covered himself. Accuracy is the hallmark of a professional journalist. It’s the foundation of a reputation. And essentially, Sloane called into question Graziano’s professionalism. Graziano has every right to defend his integrity (again, whether or not Sloane made his initial objections public).
And IIRC, in 2004 when the Mets and Marlins were wooing Delgado, multiple NY journalists took strong pot shots at sloane for his stream of bizarre emails. I am not 100% sure, but I’m pretty confident that some of these barbs, if not most or all, were written within official news stories and columns. And I believe Newsday was one publication who published them. Not many journalists had blogs in 2004, so that is why I think they were all in official news stories/commentary.
And sloan’s emails from 2004 were also quoted back then. This is not new.
Again, this is in regards to Graziano’s official news story that he previously had published. It is not a strictly personal issue.
dykstraw, see my post below. Heyman used quotes from Sloane’s emails in his “official” columns back in 2004. Many journalists were doing it at the time as apparently that is the only way Sloane will communicate with them.
that’s a much different issue. of course you can take quotes from an email (though i think most journalists prefer spoken quotes) but that’s not what happened here.
I don’t understand the distinction you’re referring to. What’s a much different issue? How so?
And while journalists might prefer spoken quotes, Sloane generally doesn’t speak to journalists. Emails are his modus operandi. And I would assume in this day and age, most journalists have quoted from emails from time to time. There is nothing wrong with it, assuming they’re sure who they are corresponding with. Whether the words come from an email or are spoken makes no difference that I can see.
email vs. spoken isn’t the issue here. the arc of most stories goes like: event X occurs, journalist J gets quote Q from source S and runs with it. there is no source here – the journalist is his own source and the quote itself is a story. it is a very slippery slope to gossip mongering at this point.
i don’t think it’s a big deal, and i agree with graziano and everyone else here that sloane is a huge idiot. i just don’t think it’s a story.
I’m still not sure what you’re referring to as a “different issue.” My previous reply talked about Heyman quoting a Sloane email under very similar circumstances. Please explain how that is different from what Graziano did. I don’t see any significant ones.
As for your story arc, it doesn’t make sense. First of all, I’m sure Graziano did source the story with reference materials or sites. Second, are you saying Graziano quoting from Sloane’s email is the story? That’s not true. The story was Graziano’s initial column in which he told of a scout suggesting the Delgado-Sexson trade. Sloane then took issue with how Graziano wrote the story. When Graziano tried to clarify the issue, it devolved into this unprofessional response from Sloane. He made his response part of the story, even if a tangential part. Sloane’s response is relevant and not entirely an independent issue.
Let me see if I can clarify your point … are you trying to say Sloane telling Heyman in a very dismissive tone that his story will “line a bird cage” is substantially different from him telling Graziano that he is a “retard?” I honestly don’t see a difference. Both are immature, unprofessional and personal insults made directly to a journalist via email.
the entire story here is “delgado’s agent is an idiot, look at his emails.” it’s moved completely away from delgado’s contract details.
if heyman also wrote an article/post that said “look, delgado’s agent is a fricking idiot” using nothing but private communications between the two of them, i would be similarly unimpressed.
listen, i agree that sloane is a moron and i completely think graziano is privately in the right here. i just think the public post about it is unnecessarily gossipy and professionally questionable. that’s all.
can we get back to arguing over willie now : )
dykstraw, heyman actually put the quote in an official story, not even a blog. And it was actually more of a personal nature than what Graziano did because it was solely in response to Heyman simply calling Sloane a “menace” whereas Sloane’s response to Graziano had to do with disagreement over how Graziano phrased a contract in an official story.
Because the Sloane exchange with Graziano was actually over a disagreement with part of an official story, the exchange went on longer. Therefore it warranted more space.
Given the more “official” nature of the issue in the Graziano story vs. Heyman’s (contract vs. calling Sloane a “menace”) and given that Heyman quoted the nasty email response in an official story (vs. the blog for Graziano), the Heyman response could even be considered more unprofessional.
Yes, the Graziano-Sloane exchange moved beyond the contract, but it still stems from it. As opposed to Heyman’s exchange with Sloane being of a purely personal nature from the very start.
So, maybe you’re right after all. It’s a different issue. And perhaps Heyman’s actions were even more extreme warranting even more criticism than Graziano.
But I guess you won’t see it that way, so lets agree to disagree. And get back to debating Willie and Omar. :smile:
if heyman wrote an article about how sloane is a massive a-hole, using his own private communication with him as support, then that is extremely and undebatably unprofessional. i’m not really familiar with that story though.
Agreed. The agent might be an idiot for writing such stuff but Graziano was out of line for publishing this. What good did it serve besides sticking it to Sloan because Graziano has a blog. In my view, he loses credibility by using his power (ie his paper’s blog) to show that Sloan is whatever. In fact, look no better than Sloan because of it. Will anything informative or interesting come of the “revelation”? No, except that Graziano “blew up” his source because he did not like what transpired in the email. They deserve each other.
Sloane wasn’t even a source for Graziano’s original article. So I don’t know how he “blew up” his source. Graziano apparently wasn’t even in communication with Sloane prior to receiving the bizarre emails.
What a Chipper-bag
Somebody needs to order this dude a knuckle-sangweech for lunch.
Honestly.
Not sure if this helps clear anything up, but I thought I should check in.
I appreciate the nice things some people here have said about me. As for the not-nice things, well…sometimes I do suck, so I can’t really sit here and tell you you’re wrong.
To the issue at hand: I posted this exchange on my blog, which is supposed to be (at least in part) about the funny things that happen to me in the course of doing my job. This falls under that heading, I believe. And if Sloane is embarrassed, I would submit that he has himself to blame.
I mean….”So’s your Mom?” Seriously? That’s how adults talk to each other?
Anyway, the basics:
1. I accurately reported the Mets’ remaining financial obligation to Delgado, and I knew the details that were left out. Perhaps a parenthetical “(the Marlins are paying $4 million in addition as a condition of the trade…”) would have prevented any confusion, but it didn’t strike me as necessary.
2. The no-trade thing was a mistake by me, and I will run a correction in my newspaper. My research reveals that the Mets offered a no-trade clause in the 2004-05 negotiations and the Marlins did not, and he signed with the Marlins. We all make mistakes, and I made one here. If Sloane had wanted a correction, there were, like a million better ways to ask for one.
3. I found this exchange bizarre enough to warrant a blog post, though not a newspaper story. I do believe there is a difference.
4. The note that set Sloane off actually DOES contain a derogatory remark about Delgado’s defense and baserunning. But for some reason, the agent wasn’t upset about that. I thought that was weird.
Very glad to have helped make your Monday morning fun. I love this site.
Thanks for the follow up, man. That’s cool.
Thanks for the follow up.
I have to say as a school psychologist, who deals with children who are retarded (not even the word we use to describe it anymore) his responses are not even funny. I wont lie, I chuckle thinking someone, who is as mature, as an agent is suppose to be would snoop to this level. There is an entire sub-set of our population out there who would take his remarks extremely offesnivly.
…well, at least you spelled “psychologist” correctly.
I love the internets
Well said, Dan. Thanks for the follow-up and keep up the good work.
i’m sure everyone feels sloane behaved like a complete jerkwad. that wasn’t my issue at all. i just don’t buy that journalists should be publicizing every private communication they receive just because they can. and i also don’t think there’s really a functional difference between an article and a blog. if you throw a source under the bus in a blog post, he’s not gonna any happier about it. (though obviously that isn’t your concern here.)
anyway, i don’t think anyone said you sucked. generally i think you do a fine job. i just don’t like this story.
Do any of you clowns have jobs?
AWESOME! It’s Sloane!
I imagine it’s completely out of the question for professionals to not ever use the term “retarded” as an insult, right?
Oh, wait. Boys. Sports blog. All is okay.
Those were my thoughts exaclty. The fact that we have professionals doing it. I work in a high school and get mad the kids saying it here…..
another great point. hopefully the agent will learn from this and stop using that offensive term.
The wit, charm and wisdom of David Sloane, circa 2004 …
Talking about the Mets during the negotiations –
“I’m not stupid enough to believe they were serious,” Sloane says, still angry. “I knew what they were trying to do, which is why I told Carlos that when you’re confronted by a bully, you hit him in the mouth.” Sloane delivered his punch on ESPN, which suddenly ran a report saying the Mets had withdrawn from the Delgado sweepstakes. At midnight Sunday, a stunned Jeff Wilpon, watching TV at home, called Minaya, who spent Monday re-entering the hunt.
Sloane says “we thought that without Carlos the Mets were a fourth-place club and we thought that with Carlos they were still a fourth-place club.”
On Omar’s wooing tactics vs. the Yankees’ —
Yanks GM Brian Cashman meets with Sloane and Delgado. Says Sloane: “We meet the Mets and they come in with five people, Cashman, one of the truly fine people in the game, walks in on his own.”
From an official Heyman column when he was at Newday —
Just when I thought I’d received the last of too many e-mailed rantings from David Sloane, the publicity-infatuated agent for Carlos Delgado, he checked in with a response to Wednesday’s column, in which it was pointed out that he’s “a menace.”
Sloane responded: “Tomorrow, your column will line a bird cage. The work I did for my client lives on. Nice knowing you.”
Sloane is a certifiable nut job.
Best line of the whole thing:
“Sloane says “we thought that without Carlos the Mets were a fourth-place club and we thought that with Carlos they were still a fourth-place club.”
The work you do for your client indeed! That sounds like a real Impact Player! Ahahaha
I thought this was hilarious, whether uncalled for or not. I understand that these guys are supposed to act professionally but seriously, you guys really think these agents are professional all the time? They’re regular people and as such are succeptable to act as we may act at times.
Hey, there are a few agents who almost always seem to act professionally and with integrity — such as the Greenbergs (Santana’s agents) and Arn Tellum. They’re not all slimey or nut jobs.
No, not at all, I agree with you on that. My point is that somehow we think that agents, player, politicians, etc. are immune to acting this way. Obviously, that is not the case.
Agreed. Player’s act poorly all the time (ie, Randy Johnson, Carl Everett). And Boras is pretty slimey. But you must admit … Sloane is in a class by himself. I can’t see any other agent emailing a journalist and calling them “retarded” or insulting their mother. That’s grade school stuff.
I think you are all a bunch of sissies…The fact Graziano held back as much as he did is a testament to his strong will and professionalism.
The key most of you haters or, “professionals” seem to be missing is that all Sloane had to do was politely ask for a correction and explain why….He didn’t. He chose to split hairs and get brief and offensive for no reason.
Something along the lines of, “Graziano, I would like to ask that you correct your article that states Delgado is owed X when he is really owed Z, thank you” with a nice statement saying you can reach me at this e-mail any time to discus the details/
Sloane didnt do that, did he? He got defensive and dickish and made a mom joke…Delgado should be making a public statement about how sorry he is for playing for the Marlins in his prime for a year when he shuld have been here all thanks to his dickish agent.
Well, at least “sissies” is a definite big step down from “retard.” Nonetheless, it’s kind of ironic that a post bashing Sloane starts off sounding like him.
Just sayin’… :)
Im a jerk. Not a professional. And I was trying to hit home that most people would not have responded as favorably as Graziano…
I agree with you on your point, it’s just that the temptation of irony is so intoxicating sometimes… I’m a jerk too you know..
Of course, Sloane is a Professional Jerk. Entirely different breed there.
Even if you think Graziano wasn’t specific enough that Delgado is making $16M with the money from the Marlins, Delgado’s agent is a huge jackass as to how he handled it. That kind of response is inexcusable.
That was my above point. All Sloane had to do was send a polite e-mail asking for a correction and stating why. Yet Sloane is a millionaire off of Delgado’s sucky bat with some of the worst communication skills this side of Shea….if I tried talking in a smilar manner to ANYONE in my field I would be canned in a heartbeat or made to feel so miserable that I would resign on my own.
seriously….who cares? This is Junior High.
if I wanted this much caddiness and meaningless gossip material, I’d go to my nearest Mall foodcourt.
Or you would log off Metsblog….
I don’t blame him. It’s very easy to just snap at Graziano. He’s easily one of the worst sportswriters in the country.
I like his column.