As someone who has been a Jon Heyman fan for years, I feel compelled to weigh in on the recent on-air fallout between Jon Heyman and WFAN host Keith McPherson. Full disclosure: Jon has been a guest on my radio show numerous times, and I’ve witnessed firsthand how hard he works at games. He’s always conducted himself with utmost professionalism. Conversely, if you’ve read my work on Kiner’s Korner, you know I’ve been vocal about my disdain for the state of sports talk radio. Personalities like Sal Licata and Keith McPherson epitomize what I see as the decline of the medium—favoring clickbait antics over substance.
The Incident
On Friday night, Jon Heyman joined Keith McPherson’s show to discuss MLB free agency, particularly Juan Soto’s status. What started as a professional discussion quickly derailed when McPherson implied that Heyman had a financial stake in Soto’s contract due to his relationship with agent Scott Boras.
“What’s the percentage of the Juan Soto contract that you’re gonna get when you break the news on where he signs?” McPherson quipped.
Heyman, clearly caught off guard, chuckled before firmly replying, “No… Unfortunately, I get no money for anything. I have no financial stake.”
But McPherson wouldn’t let it go, pressing further: “Not even 0.01%? A 0.01 would be a lot.”
The exchange only grew more uncomfortable when McPherson pivoted to Heyman’s infamous 2022 “Arson Judge” tweet, where Heyman mistakenly reported that Aaron Judge was signing with the Giants.
“I think the reason that got such play is because people believe everything I tweet,” Heyman explained. “I’ve had 100,000 tweets, and you get one that was wrong… At some point, I think someone could probably drop it if they’re a nice person.”
Rather than ease tensions, McPherson seemed to relish poking the bear. “I’ve also said, it would be awesome if you get to break the Juan Soto news because that puts that [‘Arson Judge’] so far in the rearview,” he said.
Finally, Heyman had enough. His voice rose as he declared, “By the way, I won’t be going on with you again. The whole thing has been a disaster. I can’t even believe you said that to question my integrity… I know you’re not a journalist; you don’t know anything about this. I’m done with you and I’m done with WFAN.”
Keith McPherson: The Clickbait King
To anyone familiar with Keith McPherson’s career trajectory, this kind of stunt shouldn’t be surprising. McPherson’s background is rooted in content creation and influencer culture, not journalism. His rise—from Pop Warner announcer to MLB Fan Cave “cave dweller” to WFAN host—has been marked by a clear focus on creating viral moments rather than fostering meaningful discourse.
This exchange felt premeditated, as if McPherson’s goal was to bait Heyman into a reaction. And it worked. The confrontation quickly made headlines, feeding McPherson’s brand while tarnishing what could have been a productive conversation about one of MLB’s biggest free agents.
Why Jon Heyman Was Right
Journalists like Jon Heyman dedicate their careers to earning the trust of fans and players alike. Implying that Heyman is financially motivated by his sources is not only disrespectful but damaging to his reputation. Yes, he made a mistake with the “Arson Judge” tweet—but who hasn’t made an error in a field that demands speed and accuracy?
What McPherson failed to grasp—or ignored—is that integrity matters in journalism. By questioning Heyman’s ethics and reducing his career to a “relationship” with Boras, McPherson crossed a line.
This clash wasn’t just about two personalities. It was a microcosm of the larger tension between traditional sports journalism and the click-driven spectacle that sports talk radio has become. Jon Heyman has earned his reputation as one of baseball’s premier insiders through decades of hard work. Keith McPherson, on the other hand, represents a growing trend of prioritizing controversy over content.
I stand with Jon Heyman. He deserves better than to have his integrity questioned by someone whose primary skill seems to be stirring the pot. Let’s hope WFAN takes this as an opportunity to reflect on the kind of discourse they want to foster moving forward.
Thoughts? Let me know in the comments below.
Comments