From this morning's appearance on the Dennis and Callahan show on WEEI (850 AM).
John Dennis: Was there a purpose to feeding the salary info to Edes and Snow?
CHB: I think the guys on our paper did their work and reported what they knew. It’s insulting to say it was spoonfed to them.
JD: So you don’t think the column should have pissed off Theo?
CHB: He’s 31. ... Nothing was leaked. I did my work. Most of that stuff in the column was stuff that was out ... in my book.
Gerry Callahan: The only thing that changed after the deal was almost done was your column. They agreed not to talk ... Someone violated that trust.
CHB: If that’s true, they have to work them out themselves. It’s not my job ... we’re not in the business of filtering out that stuff. All I did was write what I believe. The facts are facts. ... A lot of it’s opinion.
JD: When you have a longstanding mole, does it change the veracity [the need to always challenge that source]?
CHB: I suppose that’s true, but you have to guard against that. If you’re talking about the Colorado trade situation, I had more than one source.
JD: Did it occur to you as you wrote that piece that it would get the attention of and piss off Theo?
CHB: That was one of things in the column. Too much was out there. Maybe I knew too much. They would have to answer that. ... I know both of these guys pretty well ... and Larry’s side wasn’t getting out there.
JD: You might not regret it, and I know it's not your job, but do you think the sides involved regret it?
CHB: I write for the readers. I thought there had been too much, complete negligence, Larry was being portrayed as a bean counter, not a baseball guy, and in my opinion that’s not true.
JD: ... Do you use [take advantage of] your sources?
CHB: I don’t know. That’s a little scary. I can’t quite make that connection. Everybody uses their sources.
JD: Do they use you?
CHB: You try not to be used.
CHB: Most of this has been written before. It’s old stuff.
JD: What about the Colorado thing? That was new to me.
CHB: That was new. ... And I know it was absolutely true.
Caller: What possible motive could you have had, even if you had written them before? Sometimes when you are arguing with your wife, it’s best not to bring up things that happened in the past.
CHB: My job is to tell the readers what’s going on, about the relationship between these two guys. ... I can’t believe it’s that shallow, that kneejerk.
GC: You’ve said that Larry’s not your source. Or that you had other sources. That your source wasn't Larry.
CHB: I don’t remember if I said that.
JD: Do you think that Larry knew of, or approved of, what your source was doing?
JD: One last time, Larry Luchino was not the source of your Sunday column, and Larry approved of, or knew of, Sunday's actions?
CHB: To the best of my knowledge, that's correct.
Note the revisionist history. In The Column,
Dan says too much about the individuals and the contract talks has already been said. In trying to defend himself, he says "Larry’s side wasn’t getting out there." Which is it?
Obviously Dan the Samaritan felt sorry for poor Larry Lucchino, whose high school baseball prowess wasn't getting its due. So he writes a piece glorifying the baseball genius that is Lucchino. Left unasked: Must it be a zero-sum game? Couldn't he have penned a piece that lauded Larry without trashing Theo in the process?
Answer: Of course not; it was just Dan being Dan.