Finally, weeks of Googling paid off. One of the reasons I wanted to use this blog as an archive is because MSN Canada wisely doesn’t bother archiving my old columns. Oh, they’re still there in the site somewhere but my system crashed a few months ago taking my bookmarks file (that served as my archive) with it. It was pretty easy to get most of them back but one remained elusive, it was my third column that was built off the Jack Wilson-to-the-Jays rumours last summer.
It finally came up after using various search engines and combing the site.
I have just submitted this week’s offering there which gives me three yet-to-be published articles. One is dealing with A-Rod’s return to the Yankees; one is a 'look behind/look ahead’ piece on the Blue Jays and one dealing with the 2007 MVP vote. For the most part, they’re not terribly time-sensitive so I am not overly concerned about when they run.
I was hoping to get my THT column up before the site shuts down for the American Thanksgiving but it was not to be. I got it in on time but I’m guessing they wanted Keith Scherer's Barry Bonds – A guide to help you cut through the noise article to be given as much attention as possible. Keith was kind enough to lend his talents and expertise to THT this week so it’s pretty understandable that they wish to have the focus on that rather than my latest rant about what has happened to free agency rights.
Ah well. The rant will keep for a few days. I’m confident the universe can carry on in the meantime without its presence on the web.
Heh.
Actually, it will represent my 150th Hardball Times column. It got me reflecting on what THT did for my career. After struggling to keep going as site after site I was writing with dot-bombed, promised contracts never materialized, and the only offers coming in were of the ‘stock in the company’ variety I decided I would walk away. I thought I was putting a good product out there but the marketplace disagreed.
I finally decided to take one final shot. I started a blog to get my name back out there in early 2004 and by year’s end I was added to the Hardball Times staff (with thanks to Larry Mahnken for the assistance plus his running some of my work on his excellent Replacement Level Yankees Weblog). The good folks at Baseball Think Factory kept the spark alive (thanks guys) and now here I am again.
Enough soul baring…
It has been a different off-season. In three notable cases: A-Rod, Mike Lowell, and Curt Schilling, it seems that players aren’t using top dollar as the main criteria for where they will play in 2008. Each looked to where they would be happiest in making their decision. We have already touched on Rodriguez and Schilling in earlier posts so I’ll reserve my comments to Lowell.
Here is a guy that turned down a guaranteed fourth year at about $13 million because being a Boston hero and hitting in a lineup featuring Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz plus a shot at yet another ring was more important.
Ditto for Schilling.
I’m not advocating players leave money on the table; it’s just that all too often it seems that players defer their freedom to their agents or the union. All too often we hear about players who went for top dollar only to be miserable in their new location. Sure, money is important, but it doesn’t guarantee happiness--it never has. The thing is this: as a family man, job offers of $35,000 a year and $60,000 a year isn’t really a choice at all. Were I single it would be different but life’s responsibilities mean I have to make my choice on sheer economics even if it means I have to leave a place where I (or a family member) are happy living.
When you see the numbers players can earn, I don’t envy the dollar amounts for their own sake, but I do wish I could make a decision where I don’t have to take economics into consideration at all. Big time free agents will have no problem paying the bills or paying for proms, weddings etc. regardless of where they ultimately end up. They will not have to take a step down in their circumstances no matter where they are playing.
To see them making a decision where it seems they subordinate favourable circumstances for lucre is a terrible waste of free agency. That is what drives me crazy. They can have their cake and eat it too but settle for choking down cake that does not taste very good to them.
I’m hoping that the MLBPA can keep the player marketplace as open as possible. The money is there and it is sufficient enough that when a player becomes a free agent he can sit down and plan what will be his best set of personal circumstances according to his preferences and not to what the wishes of his agent or the MLBPA might be.
As Phil Garner once mulled during the strike of 1981, free agency wasn’t strictly business to many players. It was a cause, it was about freedom and rights respecting their careers. The MLBPA has turned free agency as more of an economic ideal than an ideological one. Ideals unite, economics divide and that is why the MLBPA is reeling. I hope that they can right their ship before they become the next NFLPA.
Best Regards
John
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Recommended reading...
For those interested in the whole Barry Bonds saga and baseball’s steroid issue, there is a thoughtful piece written by D.K. Wilson for the Chicago Sports Review entitled The Essence of Bonds.
One point the author fails to understand is the importance of collective bargaining as it pertains to the rules of the sport. Wilson writes:
Any rule prohibiting PED usage is a subject for collective bargaining, not unilateral decree. Vincent himself remarked about the 1991 memo:
Simply put, the rule against steroids didn’t apply to the players because the rule had never been formally collectively bargained. This is key; here’s an excerpt from Marvin Miller’s autobiography, A Whole Different Ball Game:
The fact that Selig re-released it is meaningless since it was not collectively bargained. The reason no player was disciplined for steroid use is because there was no basis for doing so. There was no rule that stated in no uncertain terms that PED usage would result in sanction. It is the reason Congress took an interest in MLB’s drug policy. The agreement in 2002 regarding steroids was the focus of the U.S. Government since it was the first time baseball had clear guidelines about PED.
It’s something to bear in mind when you read the article. As I said, it’s a good read otherwise--very thought provoking.
Best Regards
John
One point the author fails to understand is the importance of collective bargaining as it pertains to the rules of the sport. Wilson writes:
You see, Bud Selig holds a dirty secret: Steroids were banned from the game in 1991. Did you know that John Feinstein? How about you, Howard Bryant? Jeff Pearlman, Joe Strauss, did either of you know? Do any baseball writers know? Buster Olney? Peter Gammons? Any of you? You must know this:
In 1991, Faye Vincent, commissioner of baseball at the time, issued a policy that labeled steroids illegal when taken for the purpose of enhancing performance. However, no major league testing of steroids was established, so players continued to use and reap the benefits.
If not, you couldn't have talked with ESPN.com's Tom Farrey and found this out:
In truth, steroids have been banned in baseball since 1991 -- in a policy baseball officials made little effort to publicize. A source provided a copy of the seven-page document to ESPN The Magazine on the condition of anonymity. Titled "Baseball's Drug Policy and Prevention Program," the memo was sent to all major-league clubs on June 7 of that year by then-commissioner Fay Vincent. He spelled out components of the program, and ordered, "This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids." (bolding and italics by author)
Any rule prohibiting PED usage is a subject for collective bargaining, not unilateral decree. Vincent himself remarked about the 1991 memo:
"I don’t remember much about the circumstances and I don’t remember who really pushed for it. But, I can speculate that it came out of an awareness that for people who were not in the union—not protected by the Union agreement—that steroids might be a problem. I think that we had become to realize that there were a variety of other compounds floating around that were dangerous. We’d heard rumors about Jose Canseco. I think we thought that steroids and the like were basically a “football problem”, but we did think that they were dangerous. And so for at least coaches and managers and everybody else in baseball we thought we ought to go on record and say that this is bad stuff and we don’t want it getting a toe-hold in baseball."
"I think it was really our attempt to be on record, if this was our universe, if we controlled the whole thing, this is what we would do. And we did it, but we did it only for the people that were not covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement." [italics mine]
Simply put, the rule against steroids didn’t apply to the players because the rule had never been formally collectively bargained. This is key; here’s an excerpt from Marvin Miller’s autobiography, A Whole Different Ball Game:
Before 1966, the owners had a unilateral right to do, literally, anything they pleased; they could change the rules in the middle of a player's contract and say, "Here are the rules that now apply to you." The owners routinely tied players to documents-the Major League Rules, the Professional Baseball Rules, the league constitutions and bylaws-without even giving them copies of what they were agreeing to be bound by. The first basic agreement, in 1968, required that players at least be given copies of every document that became a part of their contract. Then we insisted that the owners had to advise us of proposed changes. Later, we insisted and obtained agreement that no rule would apply if it conflicted with a provision of the basic agreement.
We had them put that language in a big box in the major league rule book to make clear to anyone who opens it that any rule which is inconsistent with the conditions of the basic agreement is null and void. But we still weren't home free; we would negotiate something in the basic agreement, and the owners wouldn't change the blue book-the book that encompassed the Major League Rules and the so-called major league agreement. And since the rules weren't brought up to date, you had owners and general managers saying, "How was I to know I couldn't follow this rule? I followed it for thirty years, and it's still here." Over time, the language protecting the players' contracts and the collective bargaining agreement became stronger and stronger until the leagues finally understood that any time they wanted to change a rule affecting the players' rights, they had to negotiate the approval of the Players Association. The same became true of any playing rules that could affect a player's career. [italics mine]
The fact that Selig re-released it is meaningless since it was not collectively bargained. The reason no player was disciplined for steroid use is because there was no basis for doing so. There was no rule that stated in no uncertain terms that PED usage would result in sanction. It is the reason Congress took an interest in MLB’s drug policy. The agreement in 2002 regarding steroids was the focus of the U.S. Government since it was the first time baseball had clear guidelines about PED.
It’s something to bear in mind when you read the article. As I said, it’s a good read otherwise--very thought provoking.
Best Regards
John
An actual Blue Jays post!…
For a blog, I wished to use to vent about the Blue Birds they have given me precious little to write about this off-season. There are a couple of issues I can touch on so let’s work with what we have, shall we? Josh Towers will be offered arbitration. I doubt he’ll get $3 million considering he has a 6.50 ERA over his last two seasons. I see it as harmless; of course the Jays could simply non-tender him but pitching does have some value. He has a career BB/9 of 1.51 (1.85 in 2007) and whiffed 6.4/9 this year. He’s dynamite from the windup but he is absolutely destroyed pitching from the stretch. In 2007, opposing batters hit at Royce Clayton levels (.266/.301/.339) off Towers from the windup but they mashed like Matt Holliday from the stretch.
What can be done?
One option is having him speed up his delivery from the windup with men on base. Another is having a catcher with a cannon to work when Towers pitches. A third is have him work on various pick off moves to keep the men on base guessing--or all three. I think the Jays are at the point in time where pitching from the stretch is quite simply not an option. You cannot have a pitcher who opposing batters completely mauls (.350/.380/.632) once runners get on base. Even if they run wild on Towers, it is hard to steal home. Finally, with his precision he should be able to come inside fearlessly. He absolutely needs to keep hitters off balance and uncomfortable in the box if he hopes to be successful. I hope that the Jays can try some of these things during spring training.
Further, they can showcase him in spring training provided he enjoys some success. As a fly ball pitcher, he could probably give close to 180 league average innings in a big NL park like AT&T, Chavez Ravine, Petco, Shea, RFK or Dolphin Stadium. Towers has a career GB/FB ratio of 1.03 after posting a mark of 1.33 in 2007. Whether he’s learning to get more ground ball outs or last year was a fluke remains to be seen; nevertheless, for less than $3 million the Jays may have a potential trade chit.
It is an O.K. gamble to offer arbitration.
The Jays also claimed OF Cody Haerther (.303/.363/.474 in just under 1500 minor league AB) from the Cardinals for outfield depth. On the one hand, we have enough outfielders however other than Matt Stairs, the Jays had an abysmal bench last year. The Jays gave over 1300 AB to guys who were barely replacement level (.233/.275/.325) in 2007 so Haerther might be a potential bat off the bench. He has a better track record than the recently released John-Ford Griffin does (.262/.342/.454 minor league line) so who knows?
Speaking of which, a minor trade brought Marcos Scutaro over from the A’s. My west coast contacts speak well of him. He’s your prototypical ‘scrappy’ ballplayer although he does possess some on base skills (.350 OBP in 365 AB in 2006). His career line of .259/.320/.384 while not awe-inspiring is a step up from the “.233/.275/.325 club” of last season. I hope that the Jays won’t have a bench where you wish you had pinch hitters for your pinch hitters in 2008.
A-Rod vs. Maggs
To open, obviously the BBWAA got the AL MVP vote right but Magglio Ordonez was not a completely brain-dead choice to garner a couple of first place votes, even though the votes he got were for the wrong reasons. Consider:
We see that not only was Ordonez on base more often but he reached there via contact rather than the walk. With men on, a walk isn’t as good as a hit since a base on balls only moves up any base runners 90’. A hit can move runners a lot further and unless the bases are loaded a walk will not plate a run. Also noteworthy is Maggs struck out over 40 fewer times than A-Rod. Factor in that Ordonez played better defense than Rodriguez and you can see some justification for somebody giving Ordonez first place votes. Don’t get me wrong, I would have noted for Rodriguez myself however, I could see why somebody in good faith could have given the nod to Ordonez.
I see that Jimmy Rollins was named NL MVP. As I wrote last Sunday, it is not has bad a choice as a lot of the sabermetric crew will make it out to be. It should be noted that had the Mets not collapsed and the Phillies missed out on the NL East, David Wright most likely would have come away with top honours (Zero first place votes? 4th?? What's with that?). It is the classic ‘to the victors belong the spoils’ situation. I am biased and freely admit that the decision makes me happy as seeing Willie Stargell cop the hardware back in 1979 (yes, I am that old). Thirty years from now folks will look back at the numbers and wonder what the BBWAA was smoking when they voted (some will be doing that even as I write this) but make no mistake, Rollins did have an awesome season. Don’t forget, he set the National League record for total bases by a shortstop in 2007. Rollins defenders three decades hence will be able to point to that record, winning both the Gold Glove and the Silver Slugger and not missing a single game while doing it as justification for winning the 2007 MVP.
Of note, both MVP this year hold their respective league records for total bases by a shortstop--go figure.
Congratulations to both.
Best Regards
John
What can be done?
One option is having him speed up his delivery from the windup with men on base. Another is having a catcher with a cannon to work when Towers pitches. A third is have him work on various pick off moves to keep the men on base guessing--or all three. I think the Jays are at the point in time where pitching from the stretch is quite simply not an option. You cannot have a pitcher who opposing batters completely mauls (.350/.380/.632) once runners get on base. Even if they run wild on Towers, it is hard to steal home. Finally, with his precision he should be able to come inside fearlessly. He absolutely needs to keep hitters off balance and uncomfortable in the box if he hopes to be successful. I hope that the Jays can try some of these things during spring training.
Further, they can showcase him in spring training provided he enjoys some success. As a fly ball pitcher, he could probably give close to 180 league average innings in a big NL park like AT&T, Chavez Ravine, Petco, Shea, RFK or Dolphin Stadium. Towers has a career GB/FB ratio of 1.03 after posting a mark of 1.33 in 2007. Whether he’s learning to get more ground ball outs or last year was a fluke remains to be seen; nevertheless, for less than $3 million the Jays may have a potential trade chit.
It is an O.K. gamble to offer arbitration.
The Jays also claimed OF Cody Haerther (.303/.363/.474 in just under 1500 minor league AB) from the Cardinals for outfield depth. On the one hand, we have enough outfielders however other than Matt Stairs, the Jays had an abysmal bench last year. The Jays gave over 1300 AB to guys who were barely replacement level (.233/.275/.325) in 2007 so Haerther might be a potential bat off the bench. He has a better track record than the recently released John-Ford Griffin does (.262/.342/.454 minor league line) so who knows?
Speaking of which, a minor trade brought Marcos Scutaro over from the A’s. My west coast contacts speak well of him. He’s your prototypical ‘scrappy’ ballplayer although he does possess some on base skills (.350 OBP in 365 AB in 2006). His career line of .259/.320/.384 while not awe-inspiring is a step up from the “.233/.275/.325 club” of last season. I hope that the Jays won’t have a bench where you wish you had pinch hitters for your pinch hitters in 2008.
A-Rod vs. Maggs
To open, obviously the BBWAA got the AL MVP vote right but Magglio Ordonez was not a completely brain-dead choice to garner a couple of first place votes, even though the votes he got were for the wrong reasons. Consider:
Player BA OBP SLG Hits BB XBH OPS+ RCAA PA Outs
A-Rod .314 .422 .645 183 95 85 177 83 708 428
Maggs .363 .434 .595 216 76 82 167 73 678 405
We see that not only was Ordonez on base more often but he reached there via contact rather than the walk. With men on, a walk isn’t as good as a hit since a base on balls only moves up any base runners 90’. A hit can move runners a lot further and unless the bases are loaded a walk will not plate a run. Also noteworthy is Maggs struck out over 40 fewer times than A-Rod. Factor in that Ordonez played better defense than Rodriguez and you can see some justification for somebody giving Ordonez first place votes. Don’t get me wrong, I would have noted for Rodriguez myself however, I could see why somebody in good faith could have given the nod to Ordonez.
I see that Jimmy Rollins was named NL MVP. As I wrote last Sunday, it is not has bad a choice as a lot of the sabermetric crew will make it out to be. It should be noted that had the Mets not collapsed and the Phillies missed out on the NL East, David Wright most likely would have come away with top honours (Zero first place votes? 4th?? What's with that?). It is the classic ‘to the victors belong the spoils’ situation. I am biased and freely admit that the decision makes me happy as seeing Willie Stargell cop the hardware back in 1979 (yes, I am that old). Thirty years from now folks will look back at the numbers and wonder what the BBWAA was smoking when they voted (some will be doing that even as I write this) but make no mistake, Rollins did have an awesome season. Don’t forget, he set the National League record for total bases by a shortstop in 2007. Rollins defenders three decades hence will be able to point to that record, winning both the Gold Glove and the Silver Slugger and not missing a single game while doing it as justification for winning the 2007 MVP.
Of note, both MVP this year hold their respective league records for total bases by a shortstop--go figure.
Congratulations to both.
Best Regards
John
Sunday, November 18, 2007
How the mighty have fallen...
Schadenfreude is not something of which I like to partake. Lord knows I have screwed up on numerous occasions and loath the idea that my misfortune has made somebody’s day. With that being the case, I strive to be empathetic whenever possible. I figure if I wish for folks to be in my corner when my fortunes are in a bear market that I am obligated to act likewise.
At the same time, I have made no secret of my dislike of Scott Boras’s modus operandi. He is a showman who has never shied from the spotlight even if it hurts the people that pay his salary. Agents ideally should be like umpires in that if they’re doing a good job you do not even notice they are there. A number of reports indicate that players that hire Boras must understand that he needs complete freedom to handle negotiations in whatever manner he sees fit.
Finally, it appears, some players are beginning to feel that they feel that they’re working for the agent and not the other way around. How hard would it have been for Boras to get $300 million guaranteed from the New York Yankees? Had Boras used the full 10 day period prior to when a decision on Alex Rodriguez’s opt out needed to be made, chances are the Yankees would’ve offered an extension that totalled $300 million when added to the final three years of A-Rod’s pre-existing deal.
It’s obvious that Rodriguez wished to remain in pinstripes so why all the drama and ill feelings?
I guess it was about Scott Boras wishing to hit another financial grand slam as he did seven years ago. I have no doubts that he was confident he could get at least a $350 million contract and probably felt that $400 million was within reach. As we discussed a couple of days ago, Boras gunned for a quarter billion dollars in 2000 and got it. I can’t see him thinking that his $350 million baseline meant he was actually looking for $275 million. He saw the revenues in baseball and he had one of the game’s great players in his stable and still young enough to produce. Boras thinks he is so much more cunning than every GM and owner in the game that he could easily get the bidding up to the levels he envisioned.
It begs the question though, suppose the bidding got up around the $350 million mark without the Yankees part of the process. I’m inclined to think that he would convince his client to take the offer even though he wanted to remain with the Bronx Bombers.
That’s the problem. Who is working for whom here? Kenny Rogers stated quite clearly that he wished to stay in Detroit. Where did all this ‘return to Texas’ and shopping the Tigers’ offer come from? In both cases, Boras would look for top dollar and hoped his client would take it despite his preferences.
Who is the MLBPA working for nowadays--the agents or the players? It’s easy to understand why Marvin Miller thinks little of Boras. He is getting to the point where free agent players and draft picks are more about his career as an agent than the players he represents. Shouldn’t the union be telling Boras to back off a bit? They won’t do that of course because Don Fehr and Gene Orza care more about the salary bar and their own ideologies than what the players may wish for their careers. Suppose for a moment that a club went nuts as Tom Hicks and put a mind-blowing offer on the table … say 10 years/$400 million. Let’s say that team is the Washington Nationals. Will Boras and Fehr recommend that A-Rod take the Nats offer or maybe see if he can return to New York?
Sadly, we know the outcome of that situation--and it is pathetic. The players need another Marvin Miller. The MLBPA and certain player agents have become the new team owners and GM’s of the post Messersmith/McNally era--they have too much control over where free agents decide to play and that is so very wrong. Soon a salary cap will come to baseball and quite possibly NFL-type non-guaranteed contracts unless the union pulls itself together. It is time for other players to stand up and take their careers back from servitude to the salary bar.
Bottom line … yeah, it looks good on Scott Boras and I hope it is not his last indignity. He may be enriching his clients over the short term but over the long term, it is going to cost the players plenty.
On to other matters ….
Probably the number one problem Barry Bonds will have in trying to prove he never knowingly ingested anabolic steroids is this: His physique and bodily changes indicate long term usage. It is one thing to claim that he thought Greg Anderson gave him flaxseed oil under his tongue and to rub on his leg. It is quite another to state that it happened multiple times over several years. A couple of cycles of THG and or hGH will not produce the long term effect observed on Bonds hence it’s pretty obvious he will have a difficult time explaining how he unknowingly ingested steroids so many times over an extended period.
All of us notice when our body changes. Our old clothes don’t fit as well either being too loose or too tight, we have trouble squeezing our frame into certain situations where we never had problems before. In Bonds’ case, it would be a stretch to think that your hat is too tight despite the fact you are no longer sporting hair to be a little bit odd. I am about the same age as Barry Bonds and when these changes happen, I, like most, look for reasons why. Am I eating properly, am I burning fewer calories? Do I need to exercise more? Is it I’m just getting older? Is there anything I can do about this? We rarely just shrug our shoulder and say ‘Oh well, c’est la vie’ especially if our body is the primary tool of our trade.
Bonds underwent an extreme bodily change above and beyond the extra weight we tend to add as we age. It’s very difficult to believe that a professional athlete undergoing such a metamorphosis would not stop and think ‘Just what have I been taking anyway?’
Bottom line, despite his lawyer’s rhetoric, he will probably suggest Bonds cut a deal and not take a chance on a jury trial. The deal you make for yourself is generally less onerous than the deal forced upon you should you choose to fight a very difficult battle. Had Pete Rose walked into Bart Giamatti’s office and said ‘Mr. Commissioner, I have a problem and I desperately need help, here is what has happened …’ chances are he would be in the Hall of Fame and working in some capacity in MLB. In that scenario, Rose would serve a suspension of probably less than five years, be vilified by members of the press for a short time but be ultimately forgiven. Now he is a pariah.
If Barry Bonds admits guilt, cuts a deal and explains that his ego and desire to be the best got the better of him. While it doesn’t excuse what he did, a lot of players were juicing. Therefore, to regain his status as the best player in baseball he felt he needed to level the playing field. In time, chances are he would be viewed much like the hero of a Greek Tragedy. A god brought down by his own hubris only to find redemption and forgiveness in humility. We don’t want our heroes to be gods, we wish them to be just like us since it means that we all have potential greatness within our mortal coils. That’s why we’re so forgiving to the truly repentant, it assures us that indeed we are not unlike those to whom we look up.
Will Barry Bonds learn from the past? Doubtful, another human trait is that we feel that our own circumstances are somehow unique and past lessons simply don’t apply. It is Einstein’s very definition of insanity--doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. Barry Bonds lives in the same insane world we all do.
Best Regards
John
At the same time, I have made no secret of my dislike of Scott Boras’s modus operandi. He is a showman who has never shied from the spotlight even if it hurts the people that pay his salary. Agents ideally should be like umpires in that if they’re doing a good job you do not even notice they are there. A number of reports indicate that players that hire Boras must understand that he needs complete freedom to handle negotiations in whatever manner he sees fit.
Finally, it appears, some players are beginning to feel that they feel that they’re working for the agent and not the other way around. How hard would it have been for Boras to get $300 million guaranteed from the New York Yankees? Had Boras used the full 10 day period prior to when a decision on Alex Rodriguez’s opt out needed to be made, chances are the Yankees would’ve offered an extension that totalled $300 million when added to the final three years of A-Rod’s pre-existing deal.
It’s obvious that Rodriguez wished to remain in pinstripes so why all the drama and ill feelings?
I guess it was about Scott Boras wishing to hit another financial grand slam as he did seven years ago. I have no doubts that he was confident he could get at least a $350 million contract and probably felt that $400 million was within reach. As we discussed a couple of days ago, Boras gunned for a quarter billion dollars in 2000 and got it. I can’t see him thinking that his $350 million baseline meant he was actually looking for $275 million. He saw the revenues in baseball and he had one of the game’s great players in his stable and still young enough to produce. Boras thinks he is so much more cunning than every GM and owner in the game that he could easily get the bidding up to the levels he envisioned.
It begs the question though, suppose the bidding got up around the $350 million mark without the Yankees part of the process. I’m inclined to think that he would convince his client to take the offer even though he wanted to remain with the Bronx Bombers.
That’s the problem. Who is working for whom here? Kenny Rogers stated quite clearly that he wished to stay in Detroit. Where did all this ‘return to Texas’ and shopping the Tigers’ offer come from? In both cases, Boras would look for top dollar and hoped his client would take it despite his preferences.
Who is the MLBPA working for nowadays--the agents or the players? It’s easy to understand why Marvin Miller thinks little of Boras. He is getting to the point where free agent players and draft picks are more about his career as an agent than the players he represents. Shouldn’t the union be telling Boras to back off a bit? They won’t do that of course because Don Fehr and Gene Orza care more about the salary bar and their own ideologies than what the players may wish for their careers. Suppose for a moment that a club went nuts as Tom Hicks and put a mind-blowing offer on the table … say 10 years/$400 million. Let’s say that team is the Washington Nationals. Will Boras and Fehr recommend that A-Rod take the Nats offer or maybe see if he can return to New York?
Sadly, we know the outcome of that situation--and it is pathetic. The players need another Marvin Miller. The MLBPA and certain player agents have become the new team owners and GM’s of the post Messersmith/McNally era--they have too much control over where free agents decide to play and that is so very wrong. Soon a salary cap will come to baseball and quite possibly NFL-type non-guaranteed contracts unless the union pulls itself together. It is time for other players to stand up and take their careers back from servitude to the salary bar.
Bottom line … yeah, it looks good on Scott Boras and I hope it is not his last indignity. He may be enriching his clients over the short term but over the long term, it is going to cost the players plenty.
On to other matters ….
Probably the number one problem Barry Bonds will have in trying to prove he never knowingly ingested anabolic steroids is this: His physique and bodily changes indicate long term usage. It is one thing to claim that he thought Greg Anderson gave him flaxseed oil under his tongue and to rub on his leg. It is quite another to state that it happened multiple times over several years. A couple of cycles of THG and or hGH will not produce the long term effect observed on Bonds hence it’s pretty obvious he will have a difficult time explaining how he unknowingly ingested steroids so many times over an extended period.
All of us notice when our body changes. Our old clothes don’t fit as well either being too loose or too tight, we have trouble squeezing our frame into certain situations where we never had problems before. In Bonds’ case, it would be a stretch to think that your hat is too tight despite the fact you are no longer sporting hair to be a little bit odd. I am about the same age as Barry Bonds and when these changes happen, I, like most, look for reasons why. Am I eating properly, am I burning fewer calories? Do I need to exercise more? Is it I’m just getting older? Is there anything I can do about this? We rarely just shrug our shoulder and say ‘Oh well, c’est la vie’ especially if our body is the primary tool of our trade.
Bonds underwent an extreme bodily change above and beyond the extra weight we tend to add as we age. It’s very difficult to believe that a professional athlete undergoing such a metamorphosis would not stop and think ‘Just what have I been taking anyway?’
Bottom line, despite his lawyer’s rhetoric, he will probably suggest Bonds cut a deal and not take a chance on a jury trial. The deal you make for yourself is generally less onerous than the deal forced upon you should you choose to fight a very difficult battle. Had Pete Rose walked into Bart Giamatti’s office and said ‘Mr. Commissioner, I have a problem and I desperately need help, here is what has happened …’ chances are he would be in the Hall of Fame and working in some capacity in MLB. In that scenario, Rose would serve a suspension of probably less than five years, be vilified by members of the press for a short time but be ultimately forgiven. Now he is a pariah.
If Barry Bonds admits guilt, cuts a deal and explains that his ego and desire to be the best got the better of him. While it doesn’t excuse what he did, a lot of players were juicing. Therefore, to regain his status as the best player in baseball he felt he needed to level the playing field. In time, chances are he would be viewed much like the hero of a Greek Tragedy. A god brought down by his own hubris only to find redemption and forgiveness in humility. We don’t want our heroes to be gods, we wish them to be just like us since it means that we all have potential greatness within our mortal coils. That’s why we’re so forgiving to the truly repentant, it assures us that indeed we are not unlike those to whom we look up.
Will Barry Bonds learn from the past? Doubtful, another human trait is that we feel that our own circumstances are somehow unique and past lessons simply don’t apply. It is Einstein’s very definition of insanity--doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. Barry Bonds lives in the same insane world we all do.
Best Regards
John
Saturday, November 17, 2007
No Fehr for Barry Bonds?…
A lot of folks are bemoaning the timing of Barry Bonds’ indictment. They say ‘Why couldn’t this happen before he broke Hank Aaron’s record?’ The thing is, it may well have come at the worst possible time for one Barry Lamar Bonds. Here is the thing, there has been a lot written about how his career is not just over, so are his Hall of Fame chances. Initially I thought the first part was likely if for no other reason than by the time all these legal procedures have run their course, Bonds may be too old and rusty to play. I thought the whole ‘Barry Bonds will be banned for life a la Pete Rose and ‘Shoeless Joe’ was little more than overwrought rhetoric.
Then it hit me.
Bonds filed for free agency. This means he is not employed by major league baseball. I assume this also means he is not under the protection of the MLBPA--a private citizen as it were. Unless I am misunderstanding, the fact that he is not under contract, ergo not subject to the collective bargaining agreement means if Bud Selig were to ban him for life then Bonds would have to seek legal redress rather than arbitration.
Of course, perhaps a player has to file retirement papers with both the league and the union before he is outside the umbrella of the MLBPA. I will have to touch base with some folks and find out what is what in this regard. If Bonds is not covered by the CBA, he will have to fight a permanently ineligible ruling in court.
So maybe the whole ‘blew his chance for the Hall of Fame’ has some legs.
To me, it is absurd. I always laugh when people talk about the clause in HOF voting about character, integrity and sportsmanship. Allow me an analogy, up to very recently certain statistical baselines generally guaranteed a spot in the Heroes Gallery whether it is 3000 hits, 500 HR or 300 wins. So then, what is the baseline for ‘character, integrity and sportsmanship’? Ty Cobb was not only a charter member of the Hall of Fame he was also the number one vote getter … so there ya go.
Heh.
The thing that bothers me about all this is the fact that a lot of tremendous players have been nasty to the media. The BBWAA members realize that to not vote for players like Eddie Murray, Mike Schmidt, Steve Carlton, Rod Carew etc. would reveal them as small and petty. Barry Bonds has given them an out to deny a player honours due to his prickly personality--and its steroids and a grand jury indictment. This is something tangible they can point to as why they voted no when in reality they went thumbs-down because Bonds acted like the south end of a north bound mule blowing kisses into their faces.
Of course, Bonds could fight an attempted Selig banishment on antitrust grounds that may obligate them to settle out of court on a finite suspension. The Mitchell Report may prove that Bonds was simply one of a vast number of juiced players in which case the media may hold their noses and vote from him or risk looking like total hypocrites.
I have got to go waaaaay off-topic. At Baseball Think Factory (my cyber clubhouse), a primate (AKA a poster) named Gaelan made a terrific point about sample sizes. I’ll post it without editorial comment but I want it here so I can always find and reference it:
The MSN column was dealing with the Bonds indictment and how Barry Bonds made himself Baseball's Fall Guy for the steroid era. I also did one on the A-Rod negotiation where I can finally give the man some props away from the diamond. I have ranted here often about what has happened to free agency and I am thrilled that Mr. Rodriguez had the epiphany that he could go wherever he wanted on whatever terms he found satisfactory. Read the Wall Street Journal’s account of Mr. Rodriguez taking the reins from Scott Boras and deciding for himself where he wished to play in 2008 and beyond. Again, all I can say is--well done.
Best Regards
John
Then it hit me.
Bonds filed for free agency. This means he is not employed by major league baseball. I assume this also means he is not under the protection of the MLBPA--a private citizen as it were. Unless I am misunderstanding, the fact that he is not under contract, ergo not subject to the collective bargaining agreement means if Bud Selig were to ban him for life then Bonds would have to seek legal redress rather than arbitration.
Of course, perhaps a player has to file retirement papers with both the league and the union before he is outside the umbrella of the MLBPA. I will have to touch base with some folks and find out what is what in this regard. If Bonds is not covered by the CBA, he will have to fight a permanently ineligible ruling in court.
So maybe the whole ‘blew his chance for the Hall of Fame’ has some legs.
To me, it is absurd. I always laugh when people talk about the clause in HOF voting about character, integrity and sportsmanship. Allow me an analogy, up to very recently certain statistical baselines generally guaranteed a spot in the Heroes Gallery whether it is 3000 hits, 500 HR or 300 wins. So then, what is the baseline for ‘character, integrity and sportsmanship’? Ty Cobb was not only a charter member of the Hall of Fame he was also the number one vote getter … so there ya go.
Heh.
The thing that bothers me about all this is the fact that a lot of tremendous players have been nasty to the media. The BBWAA members realize that to not vote for players like Eddie Murray, Mike Schmidt, Steve Carlton, Rod Carew etc. would reveal them as small and petty. Barry Bonds has given them an out to deny a player honours due to his prickly personality--and its steroids and a grand jury indictment. This is something tangible they can point to as why they voted no when in reality they went thumbs-down because Bonds acted like the south end of a north bound mule blowing kisses into their faces.
Of course, Bonds could fight an attempted Selig banishment on antitrust grounds that may obligate them to settle out of court on a finite suspension. The Mitchell Report may prove that Bonds was simply one of a vast number of juiced players in which case the media may hold their noses and vote from him or risk looking like total hypocrites.
The Bonds Market...
- Baseball's Fall Guy
- Will Bonds be Barried in 2008?
- Where will Barry Bonds play in 2008?
- Treating Barrynoia
- In defence of Barry Bonds - Part 1
- In defence of Barry Bonds - Part 2
- Don’t Bury Bonds….
- Preparing For A Butt-Kicking
- What About Us?
- Apocalypse Now
I have got to go waaaaay off-topic. At Baseball Think Factory (my cyber clubhouse), a primate (AKA a poster) named Gaelan made a terrific point about sample sizes. I’ll post it without editorial comment but I want it here so I can always find and reference it:
Everyone here knows the power of sample size. The larger the sample size the more reliable your statistics. It is because of sample size that things like MLE work. The problem with any sample is that it is based upon the assumption that for any sample that is drawn from events across time, the thing that is being measured (in this case ability) has not changed. In many cases this assumption turns out to be valid which is why statistics have any use at all. The problem is that there is no way of knowing, on the basis of statistics alone, whether this assumption is valid. Which is another way of saying that statistics are not self-grounding. It stands to reason then that an intelligent observer would want to ground those statistics in meaningful first hand observations.Finally, my recent columns are up (oh no, not again!) although I have still got a couple in the hopper at MSN. The Hardball Times piece is the culmination of my search for baseball’s 100/100/100 men that I entitled The 300 Club. I was actually disappointed in the final result (the column itself); the research was fun and all but I couldn’t give it the oomph (oomph? Who says oomph anymore away from the loo?) I had hoped.
For example there are many instances that we know, without a shadow of a doubt, that a player's ability has changed. For instance:
1) when a player is young and developing their skills
2) when a player is old and losing skills
3) when a player is injured
4) when a pitcher learns a new pitch
In all of these cases the assumption that underlies statistical analysis is not reasonable. Circumstances have intruded and disrupted the sample size that gives statistics its power. Moreover if you are making a decision worth millions of dollars you don't have the luxury to wait and let the player build a new sample size. You need to make a decision now and the sample size you have is not reliable.
This should be obvious. It's well known that pitcher projections are much less reliable than the projections for hitters. The hard core stat bias is to say that this is due to luck. A more reasonable explanation is that the "true" ability that is being measured has actual variance (dead arm, hurt arm, new pitches, etc.). A smart man will send someone to watch that pitcher and not rely on unreliable projections.
The MSN column was dealing with the Bonds indictment and how Barry Bonds made himself Baseball's Fall Guy for the steroid era. I also did one on the A-Rod negotiation where I can finally give the man some props away from the diamond. I have ranted here often about what has happened to free agency and I am thrilled that Mr. Rodriguez had the epiphany that he could go wherever he wanted on whatever terms he found satisfactory. Read the Wall Street Journal’s account of Mr. Rodriguez taking the reins from Scott Boras and deciding for himself where he wished to play in 2008 and beyond. Again, all I can say is--well done.
Best Regards
John
Friday, November 16, 2007
Dear Yankees fans…
Unless you have been off-planet the last couple of days, you no doubt know that Alex Rodriguez has decided to stay in pinstripes. While I realize that he is a polarizing figure, it doesn’t change the fact that he truly wanted to remain a member of your favourite team. A quick caveat: I am a Blue Jays fan and as such, we have to deal with his bat for the next decade if we ever hope to see the post season again. I am writing this as one baseball fan to another.
Yes, he allowed his agent to do some pretty stupid things however, giving Scott Boras free rein has always worked for him in times past. This time, for whatever reason, Boras thought the off-season marketplace was conducive to a $300-$400 million contract and was likely of the opinion that it would come from the Yankees. To get this deal however a few hoops had to be jumped through, the biggest of which was getting your team involved in a bidding war with Boston and both LA teams.
Evidently, Rodriguez wished very much to stay with the Yankees. So much so that Boras announced the opt out before they even had a chance to make an offer. Boras was concerned that a face-to-face meeting with the front office and the Steinbrenners would end up with A-Rod saying ‘Where do I sign?’ before other clubs had a chance to weigh in with their offers. He instructed Rodriguez to not return calls and, to make sure nothing could prevent him from entering the marketplace, he announced the opt out before the World Series concluded. Yes, part of that was calculated on Boras’s part (and it backfired) but part of it was to not give your ex and now third baseman a chance to sign an extension with New York.
After seeing the fallout from Boras’s strategy, A-Rod decided that if he wanted to stay with the Yankees he had best make it happen himself. Rodriguez had been down this road once before with Boras and it landed him a bowel-loosening contract with the Texas Rangers who were never a serious choice until his agent told him so. Rodriguez knew that both his agent and the players union would attempt to convince him to sign with whichever team made the largest offer. Boras wasn’t looking for a contender, he was looking for a pigeon. After the desired contract was secured and buyer’s remorse set in after a season or two, then a trade could be engineered to a contending team if his new club looked like they were still a ways away from making the post season.
Alex Rodriguez the apparently grabbed the reins from Boras and built a bridge back to the Yankees. While it’s tempting to think that this was all a ploy by Boras there are some things that need to be considered.
To begin with, A-Rod didn’t sign with Texas until late January 2001. His agent is big on making teams sweat and the longer the bidding goes on and the higher the contract goes. This didn’t happen; it’s November 16 and it looks like they’ve come to terms and are just hammering out the details. The Yankees offer wasn’t shopped to other clubs. Finally, the deal signed in 2000 was a ten-year contract averaging $25.2 million per year. Despite inflation, the lower value of the dollar and the fact that revenues are far higher than they were in 2000 his new ten-year pact averages just $27.5 million annually.
Yes, it’s a new record but in context, it’s not as shattering as the deal signed seven years ago. People forget that when Ken Griffey Jr. was traded to the Cincinnati Reds he gave what was viewed as a hometown discount. That discount was still the largest total package given to a player up to that point in time. In 2000, the second largest deal was Manny Ramirez’s with the Red Sox for eight years/$160 million--almost $100 million less than A-Rod’s deal with the Rangers. Rodriguez’s new deal is just a bit over a quarter of the spread from his old contract despite inflation and the game’s record revenues.
It’s a nice package to be sure, but not a Boras masterstroke. Some are claiming it is, that Boras deliberately bid high so a lesser figure would seem palatable and reasonable. That’s not what happened in 2000. Seven years ago Scott Boras primed the public for a ten year/quarter billion contract and got it. Bear in mind that $200 million was his stated baseline the previous time; this time it was $350 million. He topped the first baseline by $52 million and fell $75 million short on the second.
Bottom line Yankee fans, just put Scott Boras and his machinations out of your mind. Alex Rodriguez loves it in the Bronx and wants to win a World Series there. He manned up, swallowed his pride and did what was needed to don the pinstripes in 2008 and beyond. He is a helluva ballplayer and proved to this cynical Blue Jays fan that his heart is indeed pinstriped.
I hope all of you will ignore the media’s vilification and realize that you’re the fans he wishes to play in front of for the rest of his career. Opening Day 2008, get on your feet, put your hands together and welcome the prodigal son home.
Best Regards
John
Yes, he allowed his agent to do some pretty stupid things however, giving Scott Boras free rein has always worked for him in times past. This time, for whatever reason, Boras thought the off-season marketplace was conducive to a $300-$400 million contract and was likely of the opinion that it would come from the Yankees. To get this deal however a few hoops had to be jumped through, the biggest of which was getting your team involved in a bidding war with Boston and both LA teams.
Evidently, Rodriguez wished very much to stay with the Yankees. So much so that Boras announced the opt out before they even had a chance to make an offer. Boras was concerned that a face-to-face meeting with the front office and the Steinbrenners would end up with A-Rod saying ‘Where do I sign?’ before other clubs had a chance to weigh in with their offers. He instructed Rodriguez to not return calls and, to make sure nothing could prevent him from entering the marketplace, he announced the opt out before the World Series concluded. Yes, part of that was calculated on Boras’s part (and it backfired) but part of it was to not give your ex and now third baseman a chance to sign an extension with New York.
After seeing the fallout from Boras’s strategy, A-Rod decided that if he wanted to stay with the Yankees he had best make it happen himself. Rodriguez had been down this road once before with Boras and it landed him a bowel-loosening contract with the Texas Rangers who were never a serious choice until his agent told him so. Rodriguez knew that both his agent and the players union would attempt to convince him to sign with whichever team made the largest offer. Boras wasn’t looking for a contender, he was looking for a pigeon. After the desired contract was secured and buyer’s remorse set in after a season or two, then a trade could be engineered to a contending team if his new club looked like they were still a ways away from making the post season.
Alex Rodriguez the apparently grabbed the reins from Boras and built a bridge back to the Yankees. While it’s tempting to think that this was all a ploy by Boras there are some things that need to be considered.
To begin with, A-Rod didn’t sign with Texas until late January 2001. His agent is big on making teams sweat and the longer the bidding goes on and the higher the contract goes. This didn’t happen; it’s November 16 and it looks like they’ve come to terms and are just hammering out the details. The Yankees offer wasn’t shopped to other clubs. Finally, the deal signed in 2000 was a ten-year contract averaging $25.2 million per year. Despite inflation, the lower value of the dollar and the fact that revenues are far higher than they were in 2000 his new ten-year pact averages just $27.5 million annually.
Yes, it’s a new record but in context, it’s not as shattering as the deal signed seven years ago. People forget that when Ken Griffey Jr. was traded to the Cincinnati Reds he gave what was viewed as a hometown discount. That discount was still the largest total package given to a player up to that point in time. In 2000, the second largest deal was Manny Ramirez’s with the Red Sox for eight years/$160 million--almost $100 million less than A-Rod’s deal with the Rangers. Rodriguez’s new deal is just a bit over a quarter of the spread from his old contract despite inflation and the game’s record revenues.
It’s a nice package to be sure, but not a Boras masterstroke. Some are claiming it is, that Boras deliberately bid high so a lesser figure would seem palatable and reasonable. That’s not what happened in 2000. Seven years ago Scott Boras primed the public for a ten year/quarter billion contract and got it. Bear in mind that $200 million was his stated baseline the previous time; this time it was $350 million. He topped the first baseline by $52 million and fell $75 million short on the second.
Bottom line Yankee fans, just put Scott Boras and his machinations out of your mind. Alex Rodriguez loves it in the Bronx and wants to win a World Series there. He manned up, swallowed his pride and did what was needed to don the pinstripes in 2008 and beyond. He is a helluva ballplayer and proved to this cynical Blue Jays fan that his heart is indeed pinstriped.
I hope all of you will ignore the media’s vilification and realize that you’re the fans he wishes to play in front of for the rest of his career. Opening Day 2008, get on your feet, put your hands together and welcome the prodigal son home.
Best Regards
John
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Holy flurping snit!...
Things are happening fast. I’m getting overwhelmed with updates, links you name it. I’ll come right out and say it now, the things to follow may change as more things come in. As a media hack, this is where the fun is, the adrenaline pumping, following every lead, following up every message, seeking confirmation or denial. Every time I refresh my web-mail there’s more stuff in it and the worst are from folks who think that I have some scoop or inside knowledge and am I willing to share it.
I’m impressed that they think I have that kind of access and or clout (I do not) and I’m just following the twists and turns as they are. Granted, I admit I’m probably getting information more efficiently since I’m being told precisely where to look for things yet I’m still trying to figure it all out.
At the same time, I feel a little guilty since I’m forced to depersonalize human beings into bits of news. Whether folks deserve what happens or not, it doesn’t change that lives are going to be affected. Some may enjoy seeing players get their comeuppance whether it’s Barry Bonds or Alex Rodriguez, but in the case of Bonds both friends and family will feel the fallout as well--and not just the enablers or sycophants either.
So far, the three big things that are happening are:
Was Anderson finally released after testifying? Did the Feds get the evidence without his assistance so they released him since the grand jury is now over? No idea, we’re going to have to wait. At least there will be plenty to write about in the coming days.
As to A-Rod, I have no idea if this part of a Boras machination or Rodriguez just decided to take matters into his own hands. The fact remains that his aggregate annual compensation remains where it was before the opt-out with seven years added (although I doubt the contract is structured thusly).
I’m sure the pundits will tell us who won, who lost, who caved etc. and will depend largely on where they get their information. To me, at least as far as my current information goes the winner is Alex Rodriguez. While I’m sure he’ll be savaged my many in the media who will gloat that he was forced to return to the Yankees with tail tucked between his legs I won’t be among them.
I’ve stated often that the original ideals of Marvin Miller and men like Curt Flood and others were about player freedom. Simply a situation where, when a contract expired, a ballplayer could pick his next destination using whatever criteria was important to him and negotiates the best deal he could.
A-Rod finally decided to do just that.
He wanted to stay with the Yankees and made it happen. Don’t forget, back in 2000 he didn’t sign until well into January and Scott Boras is always patient waiting for bidding to go as high as possible. The fact that this happened so quickly in the free agent period tells me that this was not a Boras ploy but a step by the future Hall of Famer to sculpt his own destiny. He decided he wanted to remain a Yankee, sought out the Steinbrenners and asked for a chance to make it happen.
For the first time in many years, I am impressed with the man off the field of play. He’ll still be well compensated (as well he should) so there’s no need to feel that he is a beaten cur--far from it. A-Rod pulled a Carpe Diem, he seized the day, the initiative what-have-you and did what he wanted. He didn’t do what Boras wanted or perhaps what the MLBPA wanted, he took the rights that many sacrificed so he could have them and he used them.
Unless we find out this was a clever Boras ploy, count on a column in the very near future where I will give the man full props and probably drop a couple of snarky remarks about writers like Mike Celizic and some New York scribes who will doubtlessly write that Rodriguez finally got his comeuppance.
Alex Rodriguez stood up and exercised his right to choose and made it happen not caring a whit how others might view it. All I can say is: Well done Mr. Rodriguez, you did Marvin Miller and Curt Flood proud because they fought so you could choose and you listened to your heart and your heart only in making your choice.
Best Regards
John
I’m impressed that they think I have that kind of access and or clout (I do not) and I’m just following the twists and turns as they are. Granted, I admit I’m probably getting information more efficiently since I’m being told precisely where to look for things yet I’m still trying to figure it all out.
At the same time, I feel a little guilty since I’m forced to depersonalize human beings into bits of news. Whether folks deserve what happens or not, it doesn’t change that lives are going to be affected. Some may enjoy seeing players get their comeuppance whether it’s Barry Bonds or Alex Rodriguez, but in the case of Bonds both friends and family will feel the fallout as well--and not just the enablers or sycophants either.
So far, the three big things that are happening are:
- Alex Rodriguez has agreed to the outlines of a new deal with the Yankees. 10 years/$275 million plus incentives.
- Barry Bonds has been indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice. The key phrase is: “During the criminal investigation, evidence was obtained including positive tests for anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing substances for Bonds and other professional athletes.”
- Greg Anderson has been released from jail.
Was Anderson finally released after testifying? Did the Feds get the evidence without his assistance so they released him since the grand jury is now over? No idea, we’re going to have to wait. At least there will be plenty to write about in the coming days.
As to A-Rod, I have no idea if this part of a Boras machination or Rodriguez just decided to take matters into his own hands. The fact remains that his aggregate annual compensation remains where it was before the opt-out with seven years added (although I doubt the contract is structured thusly).
I’m sure the pundits will tell us who won, who lost, who caved etc. and will depend largely on where they get their information. To me, at least as far as my current information goes the winner is Alex Rodriguez. While I’m sure he’ll be savaged my many in the media who will gloat that he was forced to return to the Yankees with tail tucked between his legs I won’t be among them.
I’ve stated often that the original ideals of Marvin Miller and men like Curt Flood and others were about player freedom. Simply a situation where, when a contract expired, a ballplayer could pick his next destination using whatever criteria was important to him and negotiates the best deal he could.
A-Rod finally decided to do just that.
He wanted to stay with the Yankees and made it happen. Don’t forget, back in 2000 he didn’t sign until well into January and Scott Boras is always patient waiting for bidding to go as high as possible. The fact that this happened so quickly in the free agent period tells me that this was not a Boras ploy but a step by the future Hall of Famer to sculpt his own destiny. He decided he wanted to remain a Yankee, sought out the Steinbrenners and asked for a chance to make it happen.
For the first time in many years, I am impressed with the man off the field of play. He’ll still be well compensated (as well he should) so there’s no need to feel that he is a beaten cur--far from it. A-Rod pulled a Carpe Diem, he seized the day, the initiative what-have-you and did what he wanted. He didn’t do what Boras wanted or perhaps what the MLBPA wanted, he took the rights that many sacrificed so he could have them and he used them.
Unless we find out this was a clever Boras ploy, count on a column in the very near future where I will give the man full props and probably drop a couple of snarky remarks about writers like Mike Celizic and some New York scribes who will doubtlessly write that Rodriguez finally got his comeuppance.
Alex Rodriguez stood up and exercised his right to choose and made it happen not caring a whit how others might view it. All I can say is: Well done Mr. Rodriguez, you did Marvin Miller and Curt Flood proud because they fought so you could choose and you listened to your heart and your heart only in making your choice.
Best Regards
John
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
