I'm always interested in how sportswriters who are considered "insiders" come up with the rumors they will float and how this rumor will get picked up by the national and local media and start to become more than just a rumor. I'm always interested to know if the original rumor came from actual sources an insider has or simply is informed speculation based on information that insider has which leads him to the conclusion the rumor could be true. It's sort of a more macro version of ESPN's self-perpetuating cycle, where an ESPN analyst makes a statement, another ESPN analyst comments on the statement and then the story gets picked up nationally, followed by ESPN reporting on the national commentary based upon the original statement. ESPN starts the news, reports on the news they start and then reports on the reaction of others to the news they started.
In this situation, Danny Knobler reports the Tigers may trade Max Scherzer this offseason because he is due to be a free agent after the 2014 season. I have read the article multiple times and can't figure out if there are actual sources from the Tigers organization who have information Scherzer could be traded or this is pure speculation from someone affiliated with the Tigers. Either way, Knobler reports it and then it takes off regionally and nationally and becomes a real trade rumor...whether based in fact or not. I'm not saying Knobler is lying or his report is false, but this is a great example of how a sportswriter considered an insider can get information that could very well be speculative and ends up being passed off as having more truth than it really does. Here's what Knobler wrote:
The Rays will almost certainly trade David Price. But there's also a very real chance that the Tigers trade Max Scherzer, according to sources.
Knobler has sources, there's no doubt about that. It's his job. As a reader I don't expect him to reveal his sources, but the fact I don't know who is sources are also makes me wonder if these sources can be trusted. Is the source Scott Boras (Scherzer's agent)? Is the source Rick Porcello's agent (Hendricks Sports), in order to help force the hand of the Tigers in determining if they will trade Porcello this offseason? Is the source a Tigers organizational member who favors keeping Porcello over Scherzer and wants the idea of Scherzer being traded out there? Without knowing the source, it's impossible to know the truth there is a "very real chance" Scherzer gets traded. This becomes important once this rumor gets picked regionally and nationally.
Scherzer hasn't won a Cy Young yet, but he's the heavy favorite to win
the award in the American League this year after going 21-3 with a 2.90
ERA, leading the league in WHIP (0.97) and finishing second to Yu
Darvish in strikeouts.
So why would the Tigers trade him?
Exactly. Why would the Tigers trade Max Scherzer because he is due a new contract in one season? It's not like the Tigers have been shy about spending money on players they believe is worth the money. They are probably not going to re-sign Jhonny Peralta so his money comes off the books and Victor Martinez only has one more year left on his deal. So there will be money to spend if they want to spend it on Scherzer after the 2014 season.
Because Scherzer is one year away from free agency and is a Scott Boras
client who is very unlikely to sign a long-term deal this close to being
able to test the market. The Tigers may make an attempt to sign him
after this season, but they realize that it's unlikely he would accept a
deal now.
This is the first reason I tend to distrust the accuracy of this report. When have the Tigers been shy about working with Scott Boras? Boras is the agent of Prince Fielder, Jose Valverde and was the agent of Magglio Ordonez. In fact, it's been clear in the past the Tigers have no issue working with Scott Boras. I don't believe the fact Boras is Scherzer's agent would make the Tigers tuck their tail (see what I did there?) between their legs and decide to trade Scherzer.
With or without a new deal, Scherzer's 2014 salary figures to jump to
somewhere around $20 million, a stiff price for a team that already has
three players making more than $20 million a year (Miguel Cabrera, Prince Fielder and Justin Verlander), and three others who will make between $12 million and $16 million next year (Victor Martinez, Torii Hunter and Anibal Sanchez).
What Victor Martinez and Torii Hunter make next year is irrelevant when it comes to the 2014 payroll. Both players will be off the payroll when the 2014 season comes around, so the fact both players make between $12 and $16 million in 2013 is probably a reason the Tigers could keep Scherzer around. The Tigers front office knows they have over $20+ million coming off the books in 2014 and could give Scherzer the deal he is looking for. Again, I'm not saying Knobler's report is wrong, but there is evidence the Tigers wouldn't break up their pitching staff and trade Scherzer simply because his agent is Scott Boras and he may be expensive.
And while the Tigers have been one of baseball's biggest spenders in
recent years, there's some uncertainty if they'll continue to spend as
much in the years to come.
I'm sure there is a reason. It would be nice if the source telling us that the Tigers could trade Scherzer would also tell us why the Tigers may not be big spenders in years to come.
The Nationals have long had interest in Scherzer, and have enough young
pitching to get a deal done. The Rangers, who could chase Price, are
another team with plenty of prospects and a need for a top pitcher. The
Cardinals seem to churn out quality pitchers, but could believe that as a
Missouri native, Scherzer would be more inclined to stay with them if
they traded for him.
Trading for and then signing Max Scherzer to an expensive long-term contract doesn't feel like something the St. Louis Cardinals would do. Why trade for an ace when they think they have developed a couple of cheaper aces in Wacha and Miller?
The Orioles could be another possibility.
Other teams, such as
the Yankees, Angels and Blue Jays, hope to acquire top pitching this
winter, but likely don't have enough to trade for a pitcher as valuable
as Scherzer.
This is the speculation part of the trade rumor...not that the rumor couldn't very well be seen as pure speculation in itself. This is the second part of the trade rumor told to Danny Knobler by his sources. Now that it's been established the Tigers "may" trade Scherzer this offseason, it's speculated that the Nationals, Rangers, Cardinals or Orioles could be a landing spot for him. Undoubtedly some websites that covers these four teams picked up on the rumors and have commented on this trade rumor. Danny Knobler covered the Tigers around 20 years (according to my source, known as his CBS Sports biography page), so he probably knows more about the Tigers than the average national reporter. It also means Knobler knows more people within the organization who would use him to get a Scherzer trade rumor floated for some reason it's nearly impossible to understand.
Some baseball people familiar with the Tigers believe that the team's
winter plans -- including a possible Scherzer trade -- could hinge on
whether the Tigers win Thursday night's Game 5 in Oakland to advance to
the AL Championship Series.
I'm really not trying to be snide here, but I'm not sure "baseball people familiar with the Tigers" could be a more vague term. It's situations like this the public has to trust the reporter providing this information. I think it's silly to base the long-term plans for Scherzer on a Game 5 where he wasn't even going to pitch, but maybe people who are familiar with the Tigers think the organization likes to make knee-jerk decisions like this.
Win or lose, though, a Scherzer trade seems a real possibility.
So there we go. It's a "real possibility" that Max Scherzer gets traded. This is how trade rumors start. A source, whose motivation remains as unknown as the source's name, tells Danny Knobler this could happen and Knobler does his job and reports accordingly. The evidence being provided (by Knobler, not the source) is that Max Scherzer is going to be much more expensive very soon, so the Tigers (who apparently are also cutting payroll in the future) won't want to try and afford Scherzer since the 2014 payroll is already high enough (which has nothing to do with Scherzer being a free agent after the 2014 season) and the Tigers won't want to stretch their wallet more.
I don't personally see how based on sources a Max Scherzer trade is a real possibility. Sure, the Tigers could trade him, but I don't think purely for the reasons given. Especially since Scherzer seems to be hitting his stride as a pitcher I would think the Tigers would like to keep him around. But hey, it's just one rumor, right? No big deal. Well, this is how a rumor starts and then it turns into something more than a rumor. It turns into a weird game of sports telephone where the rumor seems to gain more factual accuracy as it gets passed around.
CNNSI.com grabs the rumor and does a "Truth and Rumors" mention of the possibility of a Max Scherzer trade basically reciting exactly what Danny Knobler put in his original column on the possibility of a Max Scherzer trade.
Because Scherzer is one year away from free agency and is a Scott Boras
client who is very unlikely to sign a long-term deal this close to being
able to test the market. The Tigers may make an attempt to sign him after this season, but they realize that it's unlikely he would accept a deal now.
This is word-for-word what Knobler wrote about the topic. It's a CNNSI.com site for rumors so this rumor fits in perfectly. Still, the report has gone from one national sports website to another now.
Now the local and regional news outlets get a hold of this rumor. The "Detroit Free Press" writes the Tigers trading Max Scherzer is a real possibility, again quoting from the Knobler rumor. Then the article goes on to say,
(As a side note, whether trading Scherzer makes sense or not, it doesn't mean the Tigers will trade him. That's sort of my point in showing how this one trade rumor that may or may not have any truth to it suddenly becomes a national, local and regional headline. The headline of Knobler's article said the Tigers "may" trade Scherzer, while the actual article felt much more confident stating this assertion being true. A lot of things "may" happen and I guess if the Tigers got an offer they couldn't turn down then trading Scherzer is a real possibility.)
Scherzer, coming off a 21-3 season and a likely American League Cy Young
award coming later this fall, will likely command a salary around $20
million by next year and the Tigers already have three players – Miguel
Cabrera, Prince Fielder and Justin Verlander – making at least as much,
Knobler writes.
Notice how the writer relies not only on Knobler's rumor for the story, but also uses Knobler's reasoning for why the rumor could be true. I understand why he does it, but it's also relying on the original report from an unnamed source being correct and buying Knobler's reasoning.
And if the Tigers do decide trading Scherzer may be a good idea this winter, teams interested could include
the Washington Nationals, Texas Rangers, St. Louis Cardinals and the
Baltimore Orioles, Knobler writes.
So now this writer is stating these teams "could" be interested in Scherzer based on Knobler's speculation of teams who have a need for starting pitching or have had interest in Scherzer in the past.
Keep in mind, as blasphemous as a Scherzer trade may seem, the Tigers
would risk losing him for nothing following the 2014 season if they
don’t trade him.
Furthermore, the Tigers faced a similar situation
in 2009 with outfielder and fan favorite Curtis Granderson, in terms of
cutting payroll, before ultimately trading him to the New York Yankees
in a 3-team deal for Austin Jackson, Phil Coke and – of course –
Scherzer.
This is true. The Tigers did trade Curtis Granderson rather than lose him without any compensation once he became a free agent. The difference I see is that Max Scherzer is a pitcher and the Tigers have shown through re-signing Sanchez and Verlander that they recognize the value of a quality pitching staff.
Now "The Detroit News" chimes in with an article saying "there is a very real chance" the Tigers will trade Max Scherzer. This writer is a little more speculative of Knobler's report.
Basing it on sources, but not naming them, Danny Knobler of
CBSSports.com wrote a trade is possible “because Scherzer is one year
away from free agency and is a Scott Boras client who is very unlikely
to sign a long-term deal this close to being able to test the market.
2 comments:
Good article Ben. Sports media would have very little value if it weren't for these anonymous sources, but this is a great example of how anonymous speculation relayed by a writer who possesses a strong platform can be placed into the internet machine and turned into a concrete possibility.
I often feel like this whenever a writer/TV program references Peter King. You know better than most people how much personal opinion PK throws into his weekly column (like 99%). When news outlets turn around and report on one of his brain farts like it's a solid piece of evidence, i can't help but flinch.
All it takes it one writer to relay anonymous speculation for it to blow up in today's 24/7 news cycle.
J-dub, thanks. He very well could be right, though from everything I've read it seems the Tigers are willing to keep Scherzer around. I found it interesting the line of thought that the Tigers wanted to save money wasn't relevant to the discussion because the Tigers could potentially offset the cost of Scherzer with the money they save on Martinez and others whose contracts have run out. Of course there are also arbitration increases, etc.
Knobler probably has sources in the Tigers organization, but there is no way of knowing if this rumor is true or not, but the next thing we know it has become a fact of sorts that the Tigers want to trade Scherzer. It's how it is now.
Post a Comment