Turnabout

Jeff Passan takes a run at Nolan Ryan.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/mlb--despite-being-a-texas-legend--it-s-nolan-ryan-who-is-at-fault-in-rangers-front-office-flap-194617711.html

Whatever on that. I was intrigued by the choice of words at the top of the column. Emphasis mine:

<i>"In the 11 days since someone in Ryan's camp leaked to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram his dissatisfaction with the Rangers' new power structure that took away his title of team president, all Ryan has mustered publicly is a statement that said absolutely nothing, a hubristic response unbecoming a CEO whose organization is in crisis mode."</i>

Will Passan use some version of the word "leak" to describe sources who talk to him from hereon? Or is "leak" a word he simply uses to describe sources against the ones he relies on?

I like the guy's work a lot. Just curious why the Star-Telegram's scoop is shaded as treachery.

 

If you like his work a lot, it has been a few years since you checked your mail.

 

Many at Yahoo Sports have gone this combative route. I wonder if it has anything to do with Dave Morgan leaving.

Jeff Passan is very talented, but I haven't liked his work for the past year or so very much.

 

Makes me wonder, is there less collegiality from Yahoo! writers? Not face to face, perhaps, but in tone of content regarding peers and competitors. Sometimes sense a chip on the shoulder in some of their stories. Then again, maybe my sample size is small.

 

Seeing how some of these guys write reminds me of the old adage "everyone in Hollywood gets two years to be an asshole." It seems like so many writers go through that phase these days.

 

Heyman did the same thing.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/jon-heyman/21832670/nolan-ryan-doing-the-rangers-no-service-with-his-silent-treatment