Mike Reiss: Mea Culpa on the Butler article.

[bormio]

Of course not, I believe it's because Bill thinks Gilmore is better at press man coverage than Butler and that's a value to his team.

I think I understand what Reiss was trying to say (after reading his apology/explanation), but I don't put much stock in it. Ultimately, what I think Reiss was trying to say was that Bill takes EVERYTHING in to account, even something as minor as married versus single, and that there might be more variables than we know about. When people read that he was saying Butler has off field issues, Reiss went out of his way to apologize to Butler and try to say that he didn't mean it to read that way.

That said, I still don't get the outrage about Butler's ruined reputation. What did Reiss say that has injured Butler's reputation? That he's single?

No, there is nothing wrong with being single - until you make it sound like there is. Then people wonder "Does he party excessively?" (apparently not), "Is he gay?" (I have no idea) or whatever else people conjure up. I personally think there are no major issues and the problem is the contract and the agent - and that Gilmore is more talented. But Reiss specifically implied it was more than that.

 

[mike_usagisan]

No, there is nothing wrong with being single - until you make it sound like there is. Then people wonder "Does he party excessively?" (apparently not), "Is he gay?" (I have no idea) or whatever else people conjure up.

Yeah, I get where you're coming from and think you're exactly right on the real reasons. But I guess I just don't get the hysteria of this being a hit piece. What's the hit? Edelman and Gronk are partiers and they don't have ruined reputations. If it's gay, then who cares and why has that ruined his reputation?

I think people want to read malice into Reiss's writing here, when simple bad writing explains it.

 

[willard]

Worst article I have ever read from him. Even when worse than when he tried to make sense of the ESPN deflategate news. Hey we all have Mulligans now and again

 

[RayClay]

Yeah, I get where you're coming from and think you're exactly right on the real reasons. But I guess I just don't get the hysteria of this being a hit piece. What's the hit? Edelman and Gronk are partiers and they don't have ruined reputations. If it's gay, then who cares and why has that ruined his reputation?

I think people want to read malice into Reiss's writing here, when simple bad writing explains it.

After reading his explanation, he wasn't saying anything any company who hires people doesn't do [though they might not admit it].

What works against him is that almost every boston sportswriter deals with innuendo and read between the lines.

Mike doesn't. He never said Butler had off field problems, it was inferred by readers who expect everything to be a veiled slam. I think he shouldn't have written it, but it wasn't a slam at all.

 

[Tony2046]

After reading his explanation, he wasn't saying anything any company who hires people doesn't do [though they might not admit it].

What works against him is that almost every boston sportswriter deals with innuendo and read between the lines.

Mike doesn't. He never said Butler had off field problems, it was inferred by readers who expect everything to be a veiled slam. I think he shouldn't have written it, but it wasn't a slam at all.

Winner x 10.

 

[Wordsmyth]

#ReissIsAManofIntegrity

 

[RobertWeathers]

After reading his explanation, he wasn't saying anything any company who hires people doesn't do [though they might not admit it].

What works against him is that almost every boston sportswriter deals with innuendo and read between the lines.

Mike doesn't. He never said Butler had off field problems, it was inferred by readers who expect everything to be a veiled slam. I think he shouldn't have written it, but it wasn't a slam at all.

You can read it anyway you want and we know Reiss apologized for how he framed it but He absolutely implied that a potential reason Malcolm was not locked into a long term deal (negations suddenly stopped) was he is single and/or potentially had issue(s) off the field that scared off the team.

 

[TruthSeeker]

he needs to expose the dirt he has got

Now you're the one making unwarranted assumptions and character assassination.

 

[RayClay]

You can read it anyway you want and we know Reiss apologized for how he framed it but He absolutely implied that a potential reason Malcolm was not locked into a long term deal (negations suddenly stopped) was he is single and/or potentially had issue(s) off the field that scared off the team.

Except you added the "and/or" part. Precisely my point. Also, the reason for no long term deal was the Pats, rightfully, weren't going to just rip up the year he was already contracted to play.

 

[deroc5050]

I heard the article on PFW.. he is definitely painting Malcolm in a questionable light. I don't really give a ****.. its just more media BS, trying to find more attention. I heard a couple days ago that Butlers camp backed out of a deal.. then I heard the Patriots took away there offer, it was gone off the table.. Then listening to other mediots claiming that Butler is folding under pressure if he signs the tender and plays with the Patriots?? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? What friggen choice does he have if no one offers up a 1st round pick and pays him big bucks? The media is seriously.. they don't know ****. I understand its there job to entertain or to inform but.. I take it all with a grain of salt.

Being Single can be a lot less stressful than being in a bad relationship btw.. This is a ******ed premise.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Except you added the "and/or" part. Precisely my point. Also, the reason for no long term deal was the Pats, rightfully, weren't going to just rip up the year he was already contracted to play.

I think I follow you on the and/or. Reiss threw a few things out there when he should not have.

We also don't know the reason why contract talks suddenly stopped. It might have been over playing out 2016 w/o new money. Not sure.

 

[RayClay]

I think I follow you on the and/or. Reiss threw a few things out there when he should not have.

We also don't know the reason why contract talks suddenly stopped. It might have been over playing out 2016 w/o new money. Not sure.

He was naive to think people would take it at face value. I think if he reread it, he wouldn't print it. It was a mistake.

 

[RobertWeathers]

He was naive to think people would take it at face value. I think if he reread it, he wouldn't print it. It was a mistake.

I agree with most of what you said.

I do think he knows something

 

[Urgent]

Um, what? Reiss said MB was single and that may have been part of Bill's decision to invest in Gilmore. It was a stupid comment that didn't add up and Reiss has tried to explain his reasoning and apologize if anyone thought that implied anything more.

What exactly is the ruined reputation Butler now has?

A highly-respected journalist wrote an article on a highly-public platform that insinuated that Butler has off-field problems.
It hinted that those off-field issues are the reason that the Pats are looking to unload their Super Bowl hero.
That clear inference is why there are 100 or so responses here.
Reiss is considered a guy with an inside line to Foxboro, so the people who read or hear about the article can conclude that it comes from One Patriot Place.

The retraction was on a pretty obscure site. When was the last time any of you were on mikereiss.net?
I think quite a few more people will read the article than the retraction.
The right thing to do, if Mike felt it was

It's hard to argue that this does nothing to Butler. It should seriously piss him off.

Mike has been nothing but an objective, stand-up guy since covering the Patriots. If it was one of the yahoos who try to say stupid outrageous stuff to help sell male enhancement pills on website pop-ups we would treat this differently. This was totally out of character for him.

 

[aluminum seats]

We can give him a bit of a pass because of his track record, but let's not underplay just how atrocious that piece was. He felt the need to include THIS in the article, not once but twice, and both times italicized for maximum innuendo:

When you bring a player on to your team, you get everything that comes with him -- on and off the field.

When you bring a player on to your team, you get everything that comes with him -- on and off the field.

I'm sorry, that's ********. Or should I say, ********.

 

[mike_usagisan]

A highly-respected journalist wrote an article on a highly-public platform that insinuated that Butler has off-field problems.

The retraction was on a pretty obscure site. When was the last time any of you were on mikereiss.net?
I think quite a few more people will read the article than the retraction.
The right thing to do, if Mike felt it was

Okay, but what's the off-field problem implied by the article? I get that people think it's a hit piece, but what I can't figure out is exactly what the hit is supposed to be. The most I could determine is that he's single.

I believe Mike wrote his retraction on the largest platform he could. If he could do it on ESPN's blog he would have. Again, I think it says more about ESPN than it does Reiss.