It’s time once again for us to take our faces for radio and voices for print to the audio airwaves for the latest edition of The Getting Blanked Podcast.

This week we talk about Blue Jays draft picks and prospects with ESPN’s Keith Law (check out the pic on DJF), and resist the temptation to bait him into telling us stories about J.P. Ricciardi. Then we bring some serious hate for the Minnesota Twins and the St. Louis Cardinals, before bringing it all back home for some more talk about the Blue Jays’ anemic offense.

Hey, don’t knock it. Sometimes misery can be cathartic.

You can also download the podcast right here.

Or you can subscribe to The Getting Blanked Podcast on iTunes, to have the podcast, live stream MP3s and other life changing materials delivered straight to your computer each week.

As always, Mint Musical Interludes courtesy of The Constantines and Arts & Crafts Records. You can celebrate homonyms and buy everything you hear here.

And don’t forget to follow Getting Blanked on Facebook, to find our “Extra Innings” video segment, in which we basically discuss a subject that we didn’t have time for during the podcast proper or rant on endlessly about something that only amuses us. This week: The Atlanta Journal Constitution, Yunel Escobar and the problem with beat writers.

Comments (23)

  1. i like the random baseball related clips between segments.
    weed out the annoying chick slowly so it doesn’t hurt her feelings.

  2. I’ll preface this by saying that I totally understand that you guys are trying to get your podcast off the ground, and that it is a big deal for you to attract a nationally known baseball guy like Keith Law, and that you don’t necessarily want to do anything that would dissuade him from ever participating in your show again. I get it. I do…. BUT you really let him off way too easy on this pre-draft deal issue.

    Law’s response to AA’s denials on your podcast was simply to say that AA has to deny it or else there will a league investigation. There is no other way to spin that comment other than he called AA a liar. And you didn’t challenge him on that at all.

    Law says that he has a reliable source. Several questions come to mind, none of which were asked by you…. Like, who the fuck is this reliable source that we’re supposed to believe that AA is a liar? And why hasn’t this source come forward publicly about what he or she knows? And what source could possibly have better knowledge of the situation than AA and the player himself both of whom have denied the existence of the pre-draft deal?

    I guess my point is that you could try asking a few questions when you have the opportunity instead of just lobbing in softballs.

    • The key word in your well-reasoned comment is “issue.” I can’t speak for anybody else but to me it’s a non-issue. to be fair, it wasn’t even Law’s “scoop”. Kevin Goldstein put it out there first and Law said he heard it also.

      The other thing to consider: who cares?

  3. I don’t think there’s anything further to grill Law with on that. He’s not going to give up his source, and his source isn’t going to come forward for fear of repercussions or alienation among his peers.

    So really, what is there to challenge? Either way AA is going to deny the allegations and I don’t think Law is calling AA a liar as much as he’s just saying what he’s heard. I don’t think a reputable guy like Law is going to come out and say something like that unless he really trusts his source.

    The player, his representatives, and those within the Jays organization are obviously going to say there was no pre-draft deal, they have too! To say otherwise is against the rules. Not sure what the punishment would be, but it definitely wouldn’t be worth it for the sake of being truthful.

  4. C’mon, if it is a non-issue and no one cares why did you spend 10 minutes talking about it with Keith Law? If that was the case, why raise it at all? And, yes, Law wasn’t the first to tweet about it, but he has since backed up Goldstein and said that he has his own sources who have confirmed the same thing.

  5. Dustin: See post #2

  6. And really, it is now more than just the pre-draft deal. Law has gone beyond that and said that AA is being insincere in his denials of the alleged pre-draft deal. Frankly, I don’t understand how his comments on your podcast can be interpreted otherwise….

    I would like to understand the basis for his accusations that: (i) AA has breached MLB rules by making a pre-draft deal with Beede, and (ii) AA is lying when he publicly denies the existence of that pre-draft deal. It is Law’s allegations – he should have to back-up those allegations with something more than an unchallenged assertion that he has a ‘reliable source’. I don’t think that is at all unreasonable.

    And, yes, I am familiar with how “journalism” works. I’m pretty certain that good “journalism” does not include making unsubstantiated allegations in 140 characters or less.

    • You’re putting words in Law’s mouth. He said, “Whether it’s true or false they have to deny it.” He’s not accusing Anthopoulos a liar. He’s saying what he’s heard. There’s nowhere to go from there. You’re making such a larger issue of this than it is.

  7. I take it the podcast was taped before Mayor Ford’s announcement about missing the Pride Parade to go cottaging? Cause that joke basically writes itself.

  8. And after he talks about how the team would deny it whether it be true or false, he goes on to say that “I have very little doubt that there was a deal in place…” Seriously, how could the sum total of that be interpreted as anything other than a suggestion by Law that AA is being insincere?

    And as for me making this a larger issue than it is, it was you guys + Law who raised it and talked about it on your podcast, not me.

    • How, or why, would AA say anything to the contrary? He can’t comprise the kids college eligibility if the deal falls through nor can he open himself to penalty for skirting the rules if there was a deal in place.

      Does it matter if AA “lies” about this or anything, really? He’s a corporate cog, his concern is the bottom line and putting a winning product on the field. What part of his job description requires full disclosure?

      Additionally, listening to the podcast right now, Law brought this item up on his own. We asked him about Beede as a player and he volunteered his opinion on the pre-draft deal. The entire exchange lasted, approximately, 20 seconds.

    • You should finish that quote ” . . . according to a very reliable source that I’ve spoken with.”

      I think we gave it the proper amount of time, you’re continuing to keep it going. I still don’t understand what you want to find out. Who’s Law’s source? He’s never going to say that, and as someone who’s respected in the baseball community for his accuracy/honesty, he doesn’t have to. And even if he did name his source, what do we gain from that? Let’s say it was the AD at Vanderbilt, so what?

  9. The annoying chick is fucking unbearable.

  10. Drew: Yes, of course it matters if AA is a liar. We’ve previously had a GM who said that “they’re not lies if we know the truth”. I’d like to know whether AA follows that same philosophy. It is important because he is the public face of corporation. He is the one charged with selling the fanbase on the notion to stick with the team through the current rough times because they have a plan in place for brighter times ahead. That requires a certain amount of trust in the GM and the team. It is difficult for a fanbase to trust someone who is known as a public liar, as Ricciardi found out.

    Also, if the story was true, he didn’t have to hang the kid out to dry as you suggest. He could have said nothing (which is his usual M.O.). He chose to respond and he gave a very specific denial.

    Dustin: I think that it is fair to say that we’re both continuing to keep it going, since you keep responding as well. Law’s information is only as reliable as his source. He says it is a reliable source, but we don’t know that to be he case. He could give us information about the source without actually naming names – something along the lines of “a source from within the Jays organization” or “a source who talked directly with Beede’s mother” or a “source from Vanderbilt University”, or “Beede’s jilted ex-girlfriend”, or whatever he case may be. It is important to know some information about that source so that we can make up our own mind on that person’s reliability, rather than simply taking Law’s word for it without question.

    • I really don’t feel that Law or Goldstein have to do that given their reputation. Just like other respected journalists, they can use unnamed sources to back the things that they’ve heard. I also feel as though you personally care about Anthopoulos’ supposed integrity far more than anyone else does. It’s an editorial decision on our part not to delve further into it, and the reason why I keep responding is to further defend your original accusation that we were going soft on Law. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. We just didn’t find that issue to be really all that interesting weeks after it was originally talked about.

  11. I think there are times when the GM should absolutely be honest with his teams fanbase, this isn’t one of those times.

  12. There’s also the fact that some people feel that if nothing is said, it’s basically an admission of guilt.

  13. Of course journalists are free to quote the unnamed sources, but to the extent that they do so they should expect to be questioned on it. Also, at least in my view, using unnamed sources significantly reduces the reliability of their story. i would trust much more a source who stands up in public and tells his story than someone who hides behind journalistic privilege.

    Also, Goldstein just tweeted that his podcast will include his response to AA’s response on the Beede situation. I guess that I’m not the only one who finds this interesting.

  14. Michael, yes it is true that saying nothing may be interpreted by some as a tacit admission.. but in AA’s case he already had a well-known policy of not commenting upon media fueled rumors. If anyone could have gotten away with not responding, he could have.

  15. All GMs are liars. They have to be to keep their jobs. There was nothing wrong with Ricciardi lying about BJ Ryan (he did it to support his player, his team and his employer) just as there isn’t anything wrong with Anthopoulos likely lying here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *