Edgy MD wrote: There is nothing not fantastic about that bit of journalism. I mean, on one hand, it points (somewhat gently) to a guy holding onto his big PR chair years past his peak. On the other, it's a story a younger Jay Horwitz would've loved to have fed just the right writer --- if, perhaps, the subject wasn't Jay Horwitz. While Horwitz did cooperate with the story, it is puzzling why it's out there, and the WSJ no less. Not so subtle push out the door? More piling on by a media conditioned over the last 30 years that anti-Met articles are generally enjoyed by an audience? Seeds planted by another team's PR department to the writer as yet another way to embarrass the Mets? Its 2013, it is quite embarrassing if your job depends on using a smartphone on a constant basis, one shouldn't still be a bumbling technophobe about it after years of using one. So it is a bit surprising that Horwitz would let himself be viewed as the fool here.