Skip to content

The vilification of Dan LeBatard is well underway

Jan 9, 2014, 12:20 PM EDT

Dan LeBatard

Yesterday Deadspin revealed that Dan LeBatard of ESPN and the Miami Herald was the voter who turned his ballot over to Deadspin readers and cast it pursuant to their collective vote. He didn’t accept any money for it but, ever since Deadspin revealed it obtained a writer’s vote a couple of months ago, the person who gave it up has been the BBWAA’s public enemy number one. Maybe even in his own mind, as LeBatard himself went on the Dan Patrick show saying that he now regrets what he did.

Contrite or not, since yesterday the knives have been out for LeBatard. A small sampling:

A longer take came from Hank Schulman of the San Francisco Chronicle, who took great issue with LeBatard. But, interestingly, seems like he would have been OK if LeBatard had asked ESPN readers to fill out his ballot instead of Deadspin readers:

People are missing the point about my ESPN vs. Deadspin argument. I’m just saying that LeBatard could have made his point better and had a much greater impact had he written a column or ESPN.com that said, “I think the process is broken and I believe you fans can create a better ballot than most of these hacks. So here’s a ballot. Each of you fill it out, and whoever gets 75 percent, I’ll check on my ballot and send it in.” Few could have criticized him for that, and since he could have said that weeks ago, he could have directed a lot of attention to his cause. Instead, LeBatard was effectively saying, “The BBWAA sucks, so I’m going to hand over my ballot to a website that also thinks the BBWAA sucks so I can make my point.” And oh, by the way, Biggio got only 3.3 percentage points more on the Deadspin ballot than the BBWAA ballot. And you know what? Maddux wasn’t unanimous on their ballot either.

I understand the generalized discomfort with what LeBetard did. It was played up by Deadspin as a scam in certain respects — “look at us, we bought a vote!” — and that set off a lot of alarm buzzers. And of course, Deadspin said right up front that the idea was to, more or less, mock the process.

But in practice, this was no different than a writer allowing readers to inform his voting which many voters have done in the past. No, he didn’t say anything about it beforehand, and no, his protest, such as it was, was not as effective as if he had longly and loudly argued the grounds of it before the vote, but the end product — a fan vote and a very good ballot as far as these things go, with no payment or other ethical lapse — seems pretty harmless. But it’s not being viewed as such by the voters themselves. I predict LeBatard  will have his BBWAA membership revoked as a result and I expect he will be treated as persona non grata for a long long time.

But a question: does this play out different if a website other than Deadspin is involved? If it’s ESPN, as Shulman suggests, or FanGraphs or Baseball Prospectus or Baseball America, does it draw this level of ire? I seriously doubt it. I believe that Deadspin is the reason so many voters are pissed off at LeBatard. A great deal of the establishment press hates Deadspin and its product. Views Deadspin as pranksters at best, Everything That is Wrong With Journalism at worst. And many use Deadspin as a placeholder for all online media, and many of these guys feel threatened by online media in a general sense anyway.  At least when they forget that they work in online media themselves:

I dunno. LeBatard is a BBWAA member and any club has a right to police its membership, so if and when they bring the hammer down on him it’s not like we can say much. But I wonder why his particular protest is any more odious than the silly, look-at-me votes of Ken Gurnick, Murray Chass and many others in their ranks. Voters who, the BBWAA membership has told me quite loudly in the past week, are entitled to their opinions however silly and that we should — no, we must — respect them lest we be considered bullies or jerks or people of intemperate tone. I guess that doesn’t apply to LeBetard. He can be called a clown and a fraud until the cows come home.

He wouldn’t be, I’m guessing, if it wasn’t Deadspin involved. Even if the fact of Deadspin’s involvement was effectively no different than any other website’s would have been. And even if this particular protest was way less harmful to the actual voting results than the protests of the Ken Gurnicks and Murrays Chass of the world.

130 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. chip56 - Jan 9, 2014 at 1:50 PM

    I keep reading people say “but the Deadspin fans votes were better than many writers” and the people who are saying that are clearly missing the point.

    This isn’t about who appeared on the ballot, it’s about another writer, in a different way, making this about him and his obsession with attention rather than the players on the ballot.

    What LeBetard did was different, but no better, than what several other writers have done in the last two years to make the vote about them and not the players.

    I agree with Ringolsby, if you’re fed up with the process and don’t want your vote, decline it. You don’t need to use it to make a statement and you sure as crap shouldn’t use it as a PR stunt.

    • cohnjusack - Jan 9, 2014 at 5:10 PM

      This isn’t about who appeared on the ballot, it’s about another writer, in a different way, making this about him and his obsession with attention rather than the players on the ballot.

      You just described a huge portion of BBWAA members’ conduct. What do you think guys like Murray Chass and Ken Gurnick were doing?

      • davidpom50 - Jan 9, 2014 at 6:43 PM

        “it’s about another writer, in a different way”

        “What LeBetard did was different, but no better, than what several other writers have done in the last two years”

        Pretty sure he made it very clear that he’s not condoning the Chasses and Gurnicks of the world, just putting LeBatard’s stunt in the same category.

      • shadowcell - Jan 9, 2014 at 10:01 PM

        so giving your vote to (a subset of) the fans is just as bad as using your vote as a tool to piss off bloggers or deny anyone a unanimous election or to punish people about whom you’ve invented PED rumors? really?

      • chip56 - Jan 9, 2014 at 10:06 PM

        I don’t believe that Chass, Gurnick, Noble or LeBetard make up a huge portion of the BBWAA. In any large group you’re going to have your asshats, don’t like a vocal minority taint the image of the whole.

    • CJ - Jan 9, 2014 at 6:16 PM

      stop with the PR stunt angle already.

      1) If it were a PR stunt, it’d be coming from someone irrelevant. Le Batard does not need PR.

      2) If you were a journalist and wanted to pull a PR stunt, would you do reveal it for free on Deadspin’s site, or would you do it on a much larger, and reputable (in this context of sport) organization either in ESPN the Mag, SC, or ESPN.com. You know, like the media conglomerate that actually cuts your checks…

      • chip56 - Jan 9, 2014 at 10:17 PM

        1) He gained over 8,000 twitter followers in the hours immediately following the revelation that he was the voter. In a world like LeBetard’s there’s no such thing as “too much PR”

        2) Yes you absolutely do it for free. If he had gotten paid for it then it is a much worse story and you can’t take the moral high ground by saying “you did it because you were disenfranchised” rather you’re stuck with “he did it because they paid him to”

        Beyond that, it would be bad business for ESPN to buy one of their reporter’s votes because then you put the other guys on your staff in a bad position. Play it out, “Buster Olney, you say you take your vote seriously but you work for a company that bought a vote so that they could open it up to the public. How do you feel about that?” Olney is now stuck either criticizing his company or saying ‘meh, no biggie.”

      • chip56 - Jan 9, 2014 at 10:17 PM

        Oh, and no, I won’t stop calling it a PR stunt because it WAS a PR stunt. It’s like calling water wet or fire hot.

      • CJ - Jan 9, 2014 at 11:45 PM

        Read what I said. Coming out on espn to drive viewership would have been the pr play there. Not just posting an article on deadspin about what he did. Espn could’ve lined up an exclusive interview with the anonymous deadspin voter and teased the lead all morning and brought him on 2 minutes after the announcement and stole the show in a far bigger way than even this. Now that’s a pr stunt. If this was a pr stunt…he needs to hire me as hisar guy, cuz the guy he has sucks.

    • unclemosesgreen - Jan 10, 2014 at 7:58 AM

      You’re the Skip Bayless of this comment section. Contrary, insensate and loud about it. It would be one thing if you were helping people examine their preconceptions and double-check the rationality of their thought. But you aren’t. You’re just another braying ass.

  2. chip56 - Jan 9, 2014 at 1:56 PM

    And, for what it’s worth, the guys who show no backbone at all in this are Jayson Stark, Buster Olney and Tim Kurkjian. Three of ESPN’s top baseball guys, all with Hall of Fame votes and not one of them has commented on this in either support or criticism of LeBetard (to my knowledge).

    ESPN itself did issue a statement abdicating any responsibility by saying that LeBetard earned his vote while working at the Miami Herald, not ESPN.

    • JP - Jan 9, 2014 at 2:08 PM

      Maybe they are genuinely indifferent. Or value their careers and paychecks more than they take issue with what happened. Either way, it’s totally unfair to vilify them for something that they had nothing to do with.

      • chip56 - Jan 9, 2014 at 2:19 PM

        Not vilifying them, criticizing them. There’s a difference. I’m criticizing them for staying mute on a topic, presumably, because it is so close to home.

        And if ESPN would fire three of their top baseball guys for either supporting or criticizing LeBetard’s actions, shame on ESPN.

    • scoutsaysweitersisabust - Jan 9, 2014 at 5:07 PM

      Tim Kurkjian actually did comment. He was on LeBatard’s show and told him he wished he had done things differently, but he agreed with him in principal.

  3. chinahand11 - Jan 9, 2014 at 2:06 PM

    LeBetard keep your head up. Your critics with they had the gorgonzos to do what you did.

  4. crackersnap - Jan 9, 2014 at 2:10 PM

    Ringolsby’s tweet tells me everything we need to know about the angst when he says “not give away to non-qualified voter”.

    “Non-qualified voter”.

    In Ringolsby’s world, what makes a person “qualified” to render an influential opinion on HoF membership? Not intellect. Not experience. Not awareness. Not clarity of thought. Not curiosity concerning new information. Nope, in Ringolsby’s world “qualified” comes from “access”.

    • chip56 - Jan 9, 2014 at 2:20 PM

      A qualified voter is someone who, by rule, has the right to vote.

      • paperlions - Jan 9, 2014 at 2:54 PM

        That isn’t what qualified means.

      • chip56 - Jan 9, 2014 at 2:57 PM

        But it is what qualifies someone to be a voter. In other words, you spend a number of years as a baseball writer and your reward is a Hall of Fame vote.

        Are there some voters who don’t take it seriously? Yes. Are there some who vote sham ballots because they want to get attention for themselves and make themselves the story rather than the players? Yes. But there are also writers who are thoughtful, who do put the work in and who take seriously their job and this vote. The world won’t end because of what LeBetard did, but do the writers have a right to be pissed off at him? Absolutely.

      • paperlions - Jan 9, 2014 at 3:44 PM

        And as a “qualified” voter, he should have the right to do whatever level of “research” (if any, obviously) he should choose to consider who to vote for. Asking 1000s of fans for their opinion and letting that guide your vote is a far more legitimate process than that used by many of the voters….because that is really what he did.

        There are very few voters that vote without consulting other people or the arguments of other people. This was just a more extreme and public version of that process.

      • chip56 - Jan 9, 2014 at 3:57 PM

        You’re all welcome to your opinions. Again I think you’re confusing the issue. It’s not about how the ballot turned out. It’s about whether it was right or not for him to offer it up in this way. I, personally, don’t care for publicity stunts and that’s what this was. I don’t like it when writers pull the crap that Gomez did so that people will talk about Pedro Gomez either.

      • paperlions - Jan 9, 2014 at 4:03 PM

        You are wrong about this being a publicity stunt. LeBatard doesn’t NEED publicity, everyone knows who he is already, and he KNEW the reaction by the BBWAA would be negative.

        The BBWAA isn’t claiming to be upset because it was a stunt, but because he allowed someone else to fill out his ballot. As has been pointed out since, other have publicly allowed fans to contribute to their ballot before.

        Passan even stated “LeBatard admitted he’s not qualified to vote. Hundreds of others fall into the same category – and that’s not an exaggeration.”

        BBWAA members and leadership HAVE to know that they have 100s of unqualified people voting and they obviously don’t care. The stunt may have been necessary to get them to care…but the only publicity being sought was for a broken process, not for the guy doing it.

      • chip56 - Jan 9, 2014 at 4:27 PM

        You’re kidding yourself if you don’t think this was a publicity stunt. Publicity stunts have been pulled by famous people for years whether we’re talking about releasing sex tapes or doing something idiotic in public – it doesn’t matter.

        Hell, if you want a sport’s analogy think of it like Bonds, already famous, did steroids because even though he was great and famous he wanted the adulation he saw guys like Mac and Sosa getting.

        It wasn’t some great altruistic move by LeBetard to draw attention to the problems with the Hall of Fame vote. It was a way for LeBetard to get every damn sports media outlet to print “ESPN and the Miami Herald’s Dan LeBetard…” It was a way for ESPN affiliates in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas and Boston to make sure they set aside air time for Dan LeBetard.

      • chip56 - Jan 9, 2014 at 10:31 PM

        LeBetard appears on television shows, radio shows and still writes pretty regularly. You mean to tell me that with all those platforms THIS was the only way he could make his point about the HOF voting system? I don’t buy it.

        Why not take it up at the BBWAA dinner in December when the group put cards on the table about a lot of issues that the writers had with the process (including the 10 player limit and the blank ballots) why not go on the air and make a stink about it? ATTENTION. This was unique which meant it would get him all the attention he wanted.

      • crackersnap - Jan 9, 2014 at 5:53 PM

        @chip:
        I do get what you are saying and can, at certain levels, agree with you. Deadspin chose to pull off a massive publicity stunt as a means to troll the entire HoF process. And they pulled it off magnificently.

        Le Batard volunteered to participate in that. And, yes, Le Batard chose to join this particular process solely as a means to call attention to his complaint and have a voice greater than simply blathering about how screwed up things are (as his peers choose to do). He was presented with an opportunity and took to call attention to what he wanted to say and he took an action. He participated in a publicity stunt in order to call attention to himself and what he wants to say.

        I get it.

        But because he was fully informed, well in advance, that such participation would come at some level of risk to his economic security and opportunity, there was never any assurance of personal net gain. So I have no problem with it. None at all. I applaud him for putting himself out there.

      • chip56 - Jan 9, 2014 at 10:10 PM

        Thanks for your comment.

        My question I suppose is what did he really risk? The BBWAA took away a vote he didn’t want. He gained 8,000 followers on twitter in the hours after he came out as the voter who “donated” his vote to Deadspin which likely makes him more valuable to his employers at ESPN.

        End of the day, the sooner this stops being a story the happier I’ll be.

      • southofsouthside - Jan 9, 2014 at 10:37 PM

        Unless he broke explicit rules – not gentleman’s rules but written rules for voting – what’s the problem? If the BBWAA doesn’t like what LeBatard did, too bad. If they don’t want voters to utilize their vote the way LeBatard did, then make an explicit rule preventing it. There’s isn’t anything complicated about this. He simply did something a bunch of people didn’t like. So what? I don’t have any problem with what LeBatard did and, in fact, I applaud him. It’s like you giving a kid a ball and when he kicks the ball instead of throwing it, you take it away from him. Did you tell him he wasn’t allowed to kick it? If not, then shame on you. Don’t punish the kid for your inability to make it clear what he can and can’t do with it. LeBatard knew what he was doing and knew it would draw the ire of the BBWAA, but that’s beside the point.

      • chip56 - Jan 9, 2014 at 10:50 PM

        How is what LeBetard did any different than what the other writers like Gomez, Chass or Noble did?

        Didn’t they all, in one way or another, thumb their nose at the voting system? Didn’t they all, through their actions, show what a sham it is and that it needs some serious reform? Why is LeBetard viewed differently? Because he gave his vote to “the people”?

      • unclemosesgreen - Jan 10, 2014 at 7:59 AM

        Troll comment, adds nothing. Deliberately inflammatory.

    • chinahand11 - Jan 9, 2014 at 2:29 PM

      Thank you crackersnap you hit it on the head. Ringolsby has the same disease that 90% of our writers have, the “I’m better than you because I have a bully pulpit” syndrome. Side effects are manifested as snarky articles written with uber confirmation bias, name calling, and belittling the intellect of other writers or ballplayers. This disease is fueled by free hot dogs and coffee and soda at American ballparks. Oh yeah, obviously these people are better than us and deserve their HOF voting rights. I mean, flaunting free hot dogs says it all.

  5. stinkfingers - Jan 9, 2014 at 2:14 PM

    On a side note….. Why does Dan LeBatard have to justify what he did with his vote, and Pedro Gomez doesn’t? It seems to me, that letting fans have a voice is a lot less offensive than the seemingly adolescent attitude expressed when Gomez was asked why he left Biggio off his ballot.

    • chip56 - Jan 9, 2014 at 2:21 PM

      He doesn’t have to justify it. He wants to justify it because that way people keep talking about Dan LeBetard. That’s the purpose of a publicity stunt.

  6. jaturso - Jan 9, 2014 at 2:16 PM

    Or, shame on the reporter (Jon Heyman) who doesn’t realize it’s “sanctimonious”, and not “santimonious”.

    • jarathen - Jan 9, 2014 at 2:47 PM

      While I found it funny, I didn’t think it was worth savaging him. I’m sure he knows the words, but that was on Twitter, not a newspaper.

  7. jimmymarlinsfan - Jan 9, 2014 at 2:16 PM

    I’m glad Dan did it and I hope the Hall of Fame voting process is changed for forever. Personally, if it were up to me. Only fellow Major Leaguers that follow under certain other criteria would be allowed to vote for such a prestigious honor. Leave baseball writers out of he he process entirely

    • paperlions - Jan 9, 2014 at 3:13 PM

      Former MLB players are far worse at being unbiased and at understanding how good they and their friend were or were not at baseball. Exhibit A for this being a horrible idea is the old veteran’s committee and all of the horribly unqualified players they put in the HOF.

      • cohnjusack - Jan 9, 2014 at 5:13 PM

        You don’t think “once playing on the same team as Frankie Frisch” is an automatic qualifier for the Hall of Fame? Jeez, how high are your standards?

      • paperlions - Jan 9, 2014 at 5:44 PM

        My standards are high, they are just over there (psst, look over your right shoulder, waaaaay over there).

    • raysfan1 - Jan 9, 2014 at 3:29 PM

      Just a reminder–the last time the Veterans Committee put a living ballplayers into the Hall of Fame was over 10 years ago (not counting Joe Torre who is in primarily due to his managing career)…and the was Bill Mazeroski.

      I expect they’d do better if they had the entire franchise and not just the ones the BBWAA didn’t elect, but let’s not pretend they are all knowing flawless judges of who deserves enshrinement either.

  8. sdelmonte - Jan 9, 2014 at 2:22 PM

    Since I voiced my support of Dan LeBatard already, let’s move to Deadspin.

    I used to think that Deadspin was useless, the branch of Gawker that was about sports, and that had the same level of integrity as Gawker. And then they broke the Mante Te’o story. Which was rather tawdry but which was also a legitimate news story. Some (if not all) of the people who work there are good reporters. Which puts them on a par with a lot of MSM outlets these day.

    And I think they, and Bleacher Report, and SB Nation, represent a new wave of sports reporters who are not beholden to anyone, and who rock the boat when no one else will. The simple fact is, the BBWAA will probably never deign to give anyone at those outlets outside Rob Neyer a vote in anything. So the alliance of Dan and Deadspin is the perfect way to make the point about old media and new.

    Do I read Deadspin often? No. I am not a fan of a lot of what they do. But when they get something right, I pay attention. And I know better than to be the sort of judgmental old fogey that too many MSM types are showing themselves to be today.

    Never mind that I voted for that ballot, and that I liked the results.

    • Old Gator - Jan 9, 2014 at 2:43 PM

      I’m glad Lebatard is being vilified. That trailer he was living in was way too cramped.

      • nworca - Jan 9, 2014 at 2:55 PM

        Amazingly, no one has commented on the appropriateness of LeBatard’s name considering what people feel about him.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 9, 2014 at 4:06 PM

      And I think they, and Bleacher Report, and SB Nation, represent a new wave of sports reporters who are not beholden to anyone, and who rock the boat when no one else will.

      This is what deadspin always was. Unfortunately after Leitch left, AJ Daulerio took over and turned it into a steaming pile of sh!t. Once he moved on to gawker, Deadspin started hiring better writers like Tom Scocca of slate, getting intelligent players like Nate Jackson and Chris Kluwe of the NFL to write for them, etc. It also does a great job on soccer coverage, which most main stream sites don’t do (although Greg Howard is a giant a$$).

      It’s always worth to check out, because they tend to write about stuff that the main stream sites stay away from. You touched on the Manti T’eo story, but they also constantly wrote about Paterno, PSU and Sandusky unlike ESPN/SI. They can actually be critical of things like Russia and the Sochi Olympics without worrying about sponsorships.

      • sdelmonte - Jan 9, 2014 at 4:15 PM

        it’s always shocking to see that Gawker’s other sites are usually reasonable and intelligent. Haven’t visited io9, Lifehacker or Gizmodo in a while, but I found all of them to be worthwhile.

  9. clydeserra - Jan 9, 2014 at 3:16 PM

    “I’m just saying that LeBatard could have made his point better and had a much greater impact had he written a column or ESPN.com”

    Wait. How so? would we be talking about it if he wrote this ESPN column? No. No we would not. It might get an “atta boy” here and on fangraphs and BP etc, but it would be ignored by everyone else.

    The only way to get this volume of conversation is to do have things play out the way they did.

  10. jarathen - Jan 9, 2014 at 3:16 PM

    Per his twitter account, Le Batard has been stripped from HoF voting for the rest of his lifetime, and from BBWAA credentials for a year.

    What a bunch of tools.

  11. brewcrewfan54 - Jan 9, 2014 at 3:19 PM

    I love seeing all these baseball writers going crazy because of this. Its like they’re finally realizing that voting for the Hall of Fame isn’t some kind of rare skill and they’re mad that they were the last to know.

  12. yahmule - Jan 9, 2014 at 3:51 PM

    LeBatard is a skeevy weasel, but not for giving away his vote. I will say, his only motivation for giving away the vote was self promotion and nothing else. Not that it matters.

    • stex52 - Jan 9, 2014 at 4:40 PM

      What can I say, Yah? I’m not familiar with the man or his show. But sometimes I am content with the right thing happening for the wrong reasons.

      • yahmule - Jan 9, 2014 at 5:14 PM

        I would just hate for anybody to ever think Dan LaBatard did anything with the slightest air of altruism. He’s not wired like that.

  13. yahmule - Jan 9, 2014 at 3:55 PM

    I view LeBatard giving away his vote in the same light I might view some repellent creature like Rush Limbaugh or Snooki doing something nice for a fan.

  14. Kevin Gillman - Jan 9, 2014 at 4:25 PM

    I’m confused with this, does anyone get a BBWAA certificate that has worked for a newspaper for 10 years? I mean when did Dan ever work the baseball beat? I always thought he was a sports columnist.

    • raysfan1 - Jan 9, 2014 at 6:21 PM

      You have to apply, and you do not have to cover baseball full time. Once you are a member for ten years, you get to vote forever even if you do not cover baseball at all (like three writers for a certain golfing magazine). This is actually one of the problems.

      • Kevin Gillman - Jan 9, 2014 at 10:54 PM

        I can tell, which is why media should not have a say in this. Hire a panel, let them decide, like Football HOF does. It just seems like they take advantage of the system here.

  15. huskerguy - Jan 9, 2014 at 5:02 PM

    The first tweet was best: “non-qualify”… Pretty much sums up 80% of the voters

  16. benrob99 - Jan 9, 2014 at 7:39 PM

    Lebatard is a jackass. Who would guess making a mockery of the process would induce ridicule??? You people sicken me for defending this idiot.

  17. jdillydawg - Jan 9, 2014 at 11:37 PM

    I scroll past LeBatard’s show on my Sirius every day. But tomorrow, I think I’ll check it out. I wish he hadn’t apologized, I totally respect his move.

    Given the idiot votes of some of his peers, my guess is his ballot – that of a collective – is probably the most honest and accurate.

  18. benrob99 - Jan 9, 2014 at 11:49 PM

    Oh!!! He gained Twitter followers. OK well as long as the ends justifies the means!

  19. Walk - Jan 10, 2014 at 12:29 AM

    As craig said i also wonder how this would have been treated if dan lebatard had placed a poll online then proceeded to cast his vote as the poll indicated. This seems no different than that, and i doubt it would have drawn any discipline. I believe the blank ballots and the ones that blatantly stink of homerism like the single vote ballot that had jack morris on it was worse than what lebatard had done. Since they suspended lebatard i cannot wait to see the reasoning for not suspending a biased voter and one who does not care enough about his vote to look into whether a player had taken steroids or not. There is no way the blank ballot casters are making an informed decision. Willful ignorance should never be tolerated.

  20. realitypolice - Jan 10, 2014 at 11:21 AM

    I didn’t hear him on the DP Show, so I am not sure what he said there. But on other outlets, including his own radio and TV shows, he did not say that he regretted doing it, he just regretted the timing of going public. In retrospect he wishes he had waited awhile so that he would not take the spotlight away from the inductees.

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

The Jon Lester-Yoenis Cespedes trade is a win-win
Top 10 MLB Player Searches