I have waited a great deal of time and I have bit my tongue here.  I know Topkin has written for the St. Pete Times for the past 20 years and for the most part has been the "conscience" of MLB in this community as far as print media is concerned.  Having said that, I am at the end of my rope with one Mr. Marc Topkin.

As fans and consumers not just of baseball but of ANY specific niche audience, I think a beat writer's job is to harness and grow and cultivate his audience.

One instance comes close to mind but there are others, simply put general opinion and slanted information that Marc has done ove the past 2-3 years have me raising more questions than answers.

I must ask, besides maybe a weekly appearance on Charley Steiner's Baseball Beat, does Marc ever listen to local radio?  What is his rapport with local media "competitors"?  The Boof Bonser deal was what put it out in the open for me, because now its out in the open that Bonser was indeed a target of the Rays in the deal that ultimately sent Matt Garza here.  To deny this in the name of "internet rumor" when all he had to do was make a phone call and realize that Bonser himself was in on a negotiation and opened up to a local tv reporter was spiteful and disrespectful on the part of Topkin.

I am not asking for our papers to become like Washington or Boston or St. Louis or Houston with over the top coverage of the local team, but can we get more responsible, in depth, comprehensive baseball coverage in this market?  Why does Topkin now become second rate?  Every hot stove story this offseason was not broken by local reporters but by national baseball writers?  And I ask, is that normal standard operating procedure?

In the end, yes I am perturbed.  Its personal in the sense that Topkin has became too big for himself and instead of being at the 1987 All Star Game covering Kirby Puckett, its now 2007.  He has forgotten what its like to be hungry.  Maybe he needs to shave off that constant 5 o'clock shadow and get back to the basics!  Do we as fans deserve more?  DRB is the best site around, but it shouldn't be breaking news stories in regards to this club or any club!

I have read Marc Topkin for only the past 2 years, since I moved here, and I am mystified at the criticisms. Perhaps it is because I am comparing him to NY writers who are by and large either bullies, ignoramuses or stodgy traditionalists, and that includes the NY Times' writers, but I find his articles thoughtful, often thought provoking and always responsible. He is one of the few journalists who consistently refers to progressive analytical tools and whose writing is always balanced rather than nasty or needlessly confrontational.

As for the Boof Bonzer episode, perhaps I am missing something, but I do not see where it is now in the open that the Rays targeted him. I see an implication that there may have been wider discussions, but that is all. As far as I can tell, it was an internet rumor, which is not a criticism at all. It is simply a description, i.e. that an internet blog suggested it might happen. I read Topkin's piece at the time and took nothing else away from it, certainly not disdain or insult or anything else for people to get exercised over. It is entirely possible that Topkin did check it out and realized it was simply not true.

I also miss the point about MLBTR's attitude to Topkin. It seems to me they are grateful that he took time out to answer their questions and are not criticizing him in any way. Again, perhaps I am misinterpreting. It is a good site, a kind of clearinghouse for rumors, but again, there is no implicit criticism of that role. It is a reporter's job to use sources to report rumors, and so long as he is identifying them as such, it is responsible reporting.

Is there some sort of silly war between bloggers and journalists? I know some reporters have been very critical of internet blogs, which is foolishness, but for bloggers to counter-attack is equally foolish. It's like the phony war between scouts and statisticians. Each role has its own conventions, ethics and usefulness and complement each other. If anything, it is the newer blog domain that lacks really established procedures and standards, which is why this one is so good; it seems to abide by a higher standard of behavior than many others.

It was first hand information substantiated by Bonser personally and conveyed to JP Peterson and it was reported on by the NBC affiliate 1 full day before the trade, a complete contradiction of what an "internet rumor" is.

Bob,  I have literally grown up on Marc and I have noticed a decay on his work.  That may be conjecture by me but its my opinion.  They aren't "digging" and if Charley Steiner's "The Beat" show constitutes "digging", then we got a sorry situation for comprehensive beat reporting.  All I am saying is DRB has beaten both local papers to all the stories this offseason.  And Topkin simply comes across pompous.  I am not a blogger on any other site, all I am doing is calling a spade a spade here.  Topkin has changed in the past 20 years, and probably not for the better.

I just feel that in the past few years, Topkin has fallen victim to the "laissez-faire" attitude of most fans.  I think DRB bloggers and participators on this site are better than the common fan, but my biggest complaint is we deserve more and better.  They aren't working as hard as they should.

Topkin has compromised a great deal of personal integrity with me recently.  And who am I but Joe Schmoe?  I hold a beat writer to a different tune than that of a columnist.  He should be informed and I have very, very good reason to believe that he is not, particularly this offseason.

We disagree about Topkin, but the fact that Bonser substantiated it does not necessarily make it credible, especially if Marc had information to the contrary. In any case, I think the point still holds that calling something an internet rumor is not derisive.

As for keeping up with latest developments, I have not seen what you do. Seems to me he is always very au courant as far as Rays' news is concerned.

Topkin: My immediate reaction is that the Twins did because Delmon established himself as a potential impact player for a long time.

How the H E Double Cue Sticks does anyone "establish" himself as a "potential" impact player?  Is this doubletalk ar am I knitpicking here?  

I don't consider it nitpicking, but I do think the phrase is reasonably clear if a bit clunky.

He established himself by not being overwhelmed in the majors at a very young age. Until 2007, with little major league experience, he had not really established himself as anything more than a talented minor leaguer.

His future is still only potential as he obviously has great talent and some skills but also weaknesses. His 2007 was not a good season for a right fielder, but he showed enough so that he can still be considered a prospect.

Given his talent and skills, he may yet be an impact player. He isn't one yet, and there can be no certainty that he ever will be, but his performance in 2007 establishes that he continues to demonstrate the potential to be an impact player, weaknesses notwithstanding.