Skip to content

Great Moments in Twitter: Buster Olney blocked Jon Heyman

Jul 5, 2012, 8:25 AM EDT

Twitter logo

This is kind of funny. Yesterday it was Buster Olney who broke the Carlos Lee trade. Jon Heyman was not aware of it, however. This series of tweets came an hour after Buster broke the news:

Hearing #marlins to get carlos lee. Believed to be sending a minor leaguer or 2 to houston

— Jon Heyman (@JonHeymanCBS) July 4, 2012

Matt dominguez is one of prospects discussed in carlos lee trade talks. Not confirmed yet who astros are getting tho

— Jon Heyman (@JonHeymanCBS) July 4, 2012

Sorry, didn’t realize it was out there. @Ken_Rosenthal reported carlos lee trade. Its for rasmussen and dominguez.

— Jon Heyman (@JonHeymanCBS) July 4, 2012

Sorry I guess it was buster who broke the carlos lee story. I didn’t realize that since he blocked me long ago. My bad.

— Jon Heyman (@JonHeymanCBS) July 4, 2012

Given that Heyman makes a habit of blocking everyone who looks at him funny (myself included) — and a lot of people who have done absolutely nothing to him — I find this pretty amusing.

Now, how about everyone grows up, realizes that no one is above criticism and stops blocking other people like petulant children so that we may all have a nice full conversation about the game we all like.

  1. runyetirun - Jul 5, 2012 at 8:31 AM

    Why is Heyman wasting time talking about Olney when he should instead be telling us how this trade impacts Johnny Damon

  2. darthicarus - Jul 5, 2012 at 8:36 AM

    I imagine Heyman giggles like a school-girl & does a self high-five whenever he blocks someone.

  3. proudlycanadian - Jul 5, 2012 at 8:41 AM

    What twits!

    • Kevin S. - Jul 5, 2012 at 8:59 AM

      Nah, not Olney. I’d have blocked Heyman on principle.

      When I first saw this headline (on Twitter!), I misread it and thought it said Buster Posey. Which would have been eighteen kinds of awesome, but I guess this is okay, too.

      • paperlions - Jul 5, 2012 at 9:09 AM

        18? Damn, they must have discovered 6 new kinds of awesome….fantastic news.

  4. redguy12588 - Jul 5, 2012 at 8:52 AM

    Why won’t somebody think of the children?

  5. itsacurse - Jul 5, 2012 at 9:00 AM

    Shouldn’t Heyman be too ashamed to admit he missed news of a (relatively) major trade because a more respected journalist blocked him on twitter?

    • js20011041 - Jul 5, 2012 at 9:13 AM

      This is why I will never understand the obsessive need of reporters to be the one to break a story. It’s the journalism equivalent of posting “first.” It’s some kind of false belief that breaking a big story makes the reporter part of that story, but it doesn’t. No one gives a shit who breaks something. The reporter isn’t the story. The breaking news is the story, and whatever “glory” that does come along with breaking a story lasts about five minutes.

      • mybrunoblog - Jul 5, 2012 at 9:29 AM

        You need to understand a few things about journalism. The idea of breaking a story isn’t about “glory” as you put it. It is about being the first to report something, hence the idea is that you are a better reporter because your sources or journalistic instincts are better than the next guys. A reporters boss (editor, producer) wants their guys to get a story first because people will then tune in to their outlet(web site, newspaper, network) to find out about the story.
        Yes there is probably some ” ha ha I got it first” stuff that goes on among reporters but it’s just normal in any competitive business that that type of stuff goes on.
        In the end it is a lot different today then it was even just five or ten years ago. With smart phones, tablets, and internet everywhere, news now travels lightning quick. Still, breaking a story remains a big deal in the sports news business.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 5, 2012 at 9:35 AM

        A reporters boss (editor, producer) wants their guys to get a story first because people will then tune in to their outlet(web site, newspaper, network) to find out about the story.

        Maybe it’s because I’m a product of the computer generation, but do people really do this? With how fast information travels these days, everyone has a report up within a minute or two of something breaking. The only difference is what source* people are citing when they write their articles.

        *Apologies for the rant, but does it bother anyone else that ESPN will refuse to credit outside “sources” for big news? Take the Deron Williams re-signing with the nets. Williams announces via his twitter page that he’s re-signing, then 10 min later ESPN’s Chris Broussard “confirms” it via his “sources”**. This crap happens all the time when a different news outlet, or the person himself, reports a story and ESPN uses a “source” tag to confirm it.

        ** I know in this instance he could have used an outside source, but Broussard also could have written “Williams admits he’s re-signed with the Nets. Outside source confirms the contract”. This gives Williams (or whoever breaks it) credit for the scoop, and then allows Broussard some credit for confirming with a 3rd party.

      • js20011041 - Jul 5, 2012 at 10:50 AM

        Mybrunoblog, the times have changed. This isn’t a case where reporters for the Washington Post break the Watergate scandal and everyone has to read the Washington Post to get that information. Within minutes of someone breaking a story, other outlets are reposting that information. People can get that information basically anywhere. Now, I understand why reporters see this as important. Breaking a story is basically all they have. Their sole job is to report the facts and offer analysis. The only problem is that traditional reporters really have no ability to offer any kind of competent analysis. They just don’t have the background. They simply are fans with a marginal talent for writing, that have been given access to the game. There are mulitudes of places that do offer true analysis, but newspapers aren’t it. If you really want to learn about the game, go read Baseball Prospectus or any number of blogs.

        Also, you are basically making my other point for me. Whether you choose to call it glory or you call it the need to prove that your insticts/sources are better comes down to the same thing. The reporter still sees himself as integral a part of the story as the story itself and thats simply not true. The idea that breaking a story is important is an antiquated concept that hopefully will die soon. Quick, name who broke Pujols signing with the Angels. Who broke the Greinke trade to the Brewers? 99.9% of the people out there don’t know and they don’t care.

      • Kevin S. - Jul 5, 2012 at 11:39 AM

        Church, agreed on the Deron Williams thing. Adrian Woj tweeted “As they say, Deron Williams first reported this story.” Broussard? No acknowledgement.

    • baseballisboring - Jul 5, 2012 at 9:20 AM

      I don’t think “more respected journalist” is really in old Jonny’s vocabulary…

    • dangle13x - Jul 5, 2012 at 11:01 AM

      js2001, you are so spot on it hurts. Brunoblog, take your state college level journalism degree and use it for all it’s worth, cleaning your crack.

      • davidpom50 - Jul 5, 2012 at 1:06 PM

        I’m with brunoblog. In today’s world, it’s even MORE important to be the first to break the news every time, because everyone else is going to be right behind you. You may not remember who first broke the signing of Pujols, but I guarantee you saw links to that reporter’s work retweeted or linked on blogs a dozen times in the first 20 minutes. The big difference is that we don’t remember later. That means reporters have to CONTINUE to be first, and can’t live forever on one story.

  6. chill1184 - Jul 5, 2012 at 9:08 AM

    Don’t like ESPN stooges, don’t like Heyman but in this case Heyman is the bigger douche.

  7. paperlions - Jul 5, 2012 at 9:12 AM

    Given the propensity of Heyman to block people at the drop of a hat, doesn’t it seem likely that Heyman blocked Olney, probably repeatedly, and Olney finally said “screw this” and blocked Heyman.

    I am not a fan of Olney’s attempts at “analysis”, but he seems to be a fair reported and generally good guy.

  8. darthicarus - Jul 5, 2012 at 9:17 AM

    Ironically Heyman missed out on the Olney tweet but has favorited all of Peter Gammons’ butt tweets.

  9. btwicey - Jul 5, 2012 at 9:19 AM

    Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

  10. cleverbob - Jul 5, 2012 at 9:24 AM

    Petulant children and twitter go hand in hand

  11. theutilityman - Jul 5, 2012 at 10:46 AM

    “Now, how about everyone grows up…and stops blocking other people like petulant children…”
    I guess I don’t see how blocking someone else on Twitter makes a person immature. I have blocked several people based solely on the fact that their Tweets annoy or bore me.

    “realizes that no one is above criticism” Even if that criticism comes in the form of the social media-equivalent of walking away from someone you may disagree with?

    “so that we may all have a nice full conversation about the game we all like.” Are you suggesting we should all be friendly with and listen to everyone who happens to like the same stuff we do? Do you realize how many frustratingly dull/ignorant people enjoy baseball? I certainly don’t want to have to read every one of their Tweets.

    So one over-exposed sports writer possibly doesn’t like another over-exposed sports writer, why is that a reason to call either one of them out?

    • dangle13x - Jul 5, 2012 at 11:05 AM

      You obviously have trouble with analogies. If you truly can’t understand the level of petulance involved .. yikes. It is one thing to block one of your degenerate accquaintances from your lackluster life, it’s another thing for a professional to do so when it could impede the ability for him to do his job, case in point THIS STORY. Block me.

    • davidpom50 - Jul 5, 2012 at 1:11 PM

      “I have blocked several people based solely on the fact that their Tweets annoy or bore me.”

      I think you’re missing the difference between unfollowing someone and blocking someone. If you don’t want to read something someone else wrote, you unfollow them. If you don’t want someone to be able to read what YOU wrote, you block them.

      “Even if that criticism comes in the form of the social media-equivalent of walking away from someone you may disagree with?”
      Again, I think you’ve got it wrong. Heyman blocks people who criticize him ( I know because that’s how I got blocked). He’s doing the walking away – in other words, refusing to face his critics and answer for his buffoonery.

  12. TheNaturalMevs - Jul 5, 2012 at 10:59 AM

    Jon Heyman post on Deadspin about being the richest man ever is still funny as ever.

  13. raysfan1 - Jul 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM

    Here’s a thought, how about everyone blocking Heyman, then maybe Boras would have to find a new mouthpiece.

  14. delawarephilliesfan - Jul 5, 2012 at 12:12 PM

    I agree no one should block anyone else – but essentially calling someone a shill and describing him as “3 steps beyond self parody” is a little bit more then “looking at him funny”

  15. schmedley69 - Jul 5, 2012 at 1:37 PM

    The National Baseball Dweebs as I call them (Heyman, Olney, et al), really don’t provide much useful insight or information, IMO. When you are essentially covering 30 teams, you don’t get the fine grained insight that you get from the beat writers, who you know, actually watch a team play on a daily basis. Most of the time Olney and Heyam are reporting second-hand information. Big deal. I could do that. Dweebs!

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Who's outside looking in on playoffs?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (3032)
  2. M. Trout (2100)
  3. D. Ortiz (2098)
  4. A. Pagan (2094)
  5. J. Hamilton (2079)
  1. A. Pujols (2055)
  2. S. Pearce (1908)
  3. N. Arenado (1896)
  4. G. Stanton (1866)
  5. C. Kershaw (1863)