Globe-EEI truce: what's the backstory?

Today in the Herald, Gayle Fee and Laura Raposa suggest that the Globe's decision to allow its sportswriters to appear on WEEI-AM has something to do with Tony Massarotti's imminent departure for the new WBZ-FM--which, you'll recall, was created by the same process that killed off WBCN.

Here's what's unclear, at least to me: if the Globe wants to keep Massarotti from jumping ship--or other sportswriters from following suit--why would this be an appropriate response? The Herald makes it sound like he'd give up his Globe gig entirely to work for WBZ--and he could do that regardless of whether the 'EEI ban was rescinded or not. (Incidentally, today's Massarotti column on the Ortiz Affair is terrific.)

I think it's safe to say, though, that the ban's lifting has something to do with the impending WEEI-WBZ war. It's certainly in WEEI's interest not to have WBZ become the automatic destination for the Globe's sportswriters. It's the exact benefit to the Globe that still eludes me.

Readers, what say you? Is it simply that Globe sportswriters with a hankering for radio now have two ways to scratch that itch--and might be less likely to quit their newspaper jobs as a result?