Here is Wilner's version from his blog:
Before the game, I had a discussion with Cito Gaston about the things I pointed out in last night’s blog post - about how he’d painted himself into a corner by not holding Shawn Camp and Scott Downs back. In the pre-game media scrum, Cito mentioned that taking Gregg out for Rommie Lewis or David Purcey wasn’t an option, but that if he’d still had Downs or Camp or Frasor available, he would have made a move before the Rays had taken the lead. So I asked him why he had removed Camp after having him only throw six pitches, with the ninth hitter at the plate, two out and nobody on in the 8th. Cito’s answer was “Have you looked at the stats?”. I said no, but that I couldn’t have imagined that Brignac could have more than three at-bats against either Downs or Camp, so it wouldn’t matter. His answer, again, was “you should look at the stats.” So I did, and they showed that Brignac had never faced Camp, and that going into last night’s game, he had faced Downs once and struck out. Obviously, one at-bat means less than nothing. It’s the same as having had no history against him, like Camp had. Cito asked a few minutes later if I’d seen the stats, and I told him the numbers and he said “that’s right”. Still wanting a real answer, I said “but you trust Camp, right? You’ve used him against lefties.” At which point I was interrupted by the Jays’ communications staff, saying that a question had been asked and answered. I explained that I was just trying to point out that he could have had Downs for the 9th had he left Camp in, and then Cito told me to look at Downs’ stats against the Rays (I’m sure the Crawford slam only adds to that argument).
Downs stats against the Rays as a whole were irrelevant to the discussion, since Cito had already said that if he had had Downs available in the 9th, he’d have used him to bail out Gregg. But I didn’t get to make that point, because Cito went on to tell me that it’s a lot tougher in his seat and that he can’t just sit there and blurt out anything that comes into his head. That was enough of the discussion for me. I think he also suggested I should come down and try managing, and I’m regretting that I didn’t take him up on the offer. I’d say that I’ll say yes the next time he offers, but I doubt it will come up again.
It’s unfortunate that I can’t have a legitimate discussion about strategy with the manager without him feeling as though he’s being attacked (or at least reacting as though he’s being attacked - I don’t know what he was feeling), but such is life. I don’t need to be belittled by the skipper in front of the entire assemblage when I’m asking legitimate, rational questions about a situation that he brought up earlier in a conversation.
John Lott in the National Post wrote about the "confrontation", and points out that Wilner and Cito have some history:
Gaston meets with Toronto media members before each game. Usually, the exchanges are low-key and relaxed. Besides providing injury updates and the like, Gaston often is asked to explain the reasoning behind his personnel decisions, and typically, those exchanges are cordial, even when the questions are challenging.
Wilner and Gaston have clashed before. Earlier this season, Wilner apologized on his blog for comments he had made in the blog about Gaston’s use of first baseman Lyle Overbay. Wilner also frequently criticizes Gaston’s managerial strategy on the post-game show.
The Baseball writers Association have taken up Wilner's cause:
“The baseball writers association would like to officially voice its support of the right of Mr. Wilner or any other reporter to ask challenging questions,” chapter president Richard Griffin of the Toronto Star wrote in the letter.
“Similar lines of questioning in the wake of difficult losses are not uncommon in all pro sports. The concern of the BBWAA is that this amounts to an attempt to either censor or intimidate the media coverage that the Jays receive on a daily basis in all four newspapers and the wire services.”
You have to wonder how much of this is history. If we know anything about Cito we know he carries a grudge and I doubt there is much love there between Wilner and Cito. Also Wilner, on the radio at least, can be fiesty and we don't know what the tones of voice were like in the conversation. Was Cito baiting Wilner? Who knows?
