metsguyinmichigan wrote: If you, the reader, want stories full of fluff, fine. But if you want stories that cut closer to the truth, and bring you near to the heart of any matter, sometimes anonymity is necessary. I call BS. Sometimes, yes. But this has become standard operating procedure for many sports writers. And, frankly, sources demand the anonymity because they can. Don't be a conduit for a source to take a cheap shot at someone. If it's so good that you feel the need to write about it, do the leg work and get it on the record. This isn't Deep Throat and matters of national importance. This isn't whistle-blowing, exposing corruption or saving lives. This is guys covering a baseball team who have created a culture where snark is news and snarky people are protected for saying things behind someone's back. well, sometimes these guys might be risking their jobs by saying this stuff. I'm all for disgruntled employees getting their say, even if it has to be anonymous. But this is rarely that. Take the 90 win quote from Alderson, which was clearly one portion of one side of a conversation taken completely out of context that everyone made a 'fluff piece' out of.