Sunday Morning Rumors Comin' Down

Leave a comment

Fox’s Ken Rosenthal’s latest column has all kinds of tidbits to last you until kickoff this afternoon:

  • An unnamed exec can’t feature the Red Sox pulling off a trade for Adrian Gonzalez that makes it worth the Padres’ while.  I agree with Rosenthal: the Padres shouldn’t be in any hurry to trade Gonzalez. Given that he’s locked up at a bargain basement price through 2011, they should wait at least until someone is desperate for offense next June, at which point the offers will only be better.  Besides: why trade the only marquee player you have during season ticket renewal season?  My guess: Gonzalez is with the Padres on Opening Day.
  • Josh Beckett is probably going to demand A.J. Burnett money in any extension. The Sox are on the hook for $12 million for him next year. If you’re Theo Epstein I can’t see how you talk extension now. If he goes out in 2010 and pitches like the 2008 Beckett, you’ll be sorry you blew any more money on him than you had to and you’ll be happy to let him go.  If he’s a Cy Young contender again, well, you’re still better positioned to bid for his services after 2010 than anyone else. The Red Sox spend quite a bit, but they aren’t usually in the business of spending before they have to, and likely won’t with Beckett.
  • Jorge De La Rosa “wants to be paid like Oliver Perez.”  Query: if you’re De La Rosa’s agent, why on Earth would you bring up a horrendous bust like Perez as you’re beginning to position your client for a pay day? Why don’t you just say “I’d like you to throw money in the toilet at my client like the Mets did with Perez!”
  • Rosenthal thinks that the Twins’ moves thus far — trading for Hardy; exercising Michael Cuddyer’s option — are all a part of the plan to get Mauer locked up long-term. They were probably the right moves independent of that, but I tend to agree that the Twins are doing what they can to make sure Mauer can’t play the only non-monetary get-out-of-Minnesota card at his disposal, and that’s claiming that the Twins aren’t committed to winning.
  • As usual, tons of other stuff from Rosenthal, so click on over.

    Jackie Robinson: “I cannot stand and sing the anthem. I cannot salute the flag”

    FILE - In this April 11, 1947 file photo, Jackie Robinson of the Brooklyn Dodgers poses at Ebbets Field in the Brooklyn borough of New York. Robinson's widow said Major League Baseball has yet to fully honor her husband's legacy. "There is a lot more that needs to be done and that can be done in terms of the hiring, the promotion" of minorities in the sport, Rachel Robinson said Monday, Jan. 18, 2016 during a Q&A session with TV critics about "Jackie Robinson," a two-part PBS documentary airing in April.  (AP Photo/John Rooney, File)
    18 Comments

    One more bit of baseball via which we may reflect on the Colin Kaepernick controversy.

    In 1972 Jackie Robinson wrote his autobiography. In it he reflected on how he felt about his historical legacy as a baseball player, a businessman and as a political activist. A political activism, it should be noted, which favored both sides of the aisle at various times. He supported Nixon in 1960, supported the war in Vietnam and worked for Nelson Rockefeller. He did not support Goldwater and did support the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He supported Humphrey against Nixon in 1968. He was no blind partisan or ideologue. When you find someone like that you can usually rest assured it’s because they’re thinking hard and thinking critically in a world where things aren’t always cut-and-dried.

    As such, this statement from his autobiography, describing his memory of the first game of the 1947 World Series, is worth thinking about. Because it came from someone who spent a lot of time thinking:

    There I was, the black grandson of a slave, the son of a black sharecropper, part of a historic occasion, a symbolic hero to my people. The air was sparkling. The sunlight was warm. The band struck up the national anthem. The flag billowed in the wind. It should have been a glorious moment for me as the stirring words of the national anthem poured from the stands. Perhaps, it was, but then again, perhaps, the anthem could be called the theme song for a drama called The Noble Experiment. Today, as I look back on that opening game of my first world series, I must tell you that it was Mr. Rickey’s drama and that I was only a principal actor. As I write this twenty years later, I cannot stand and sing the anthem. I cannot salute the flag; I know that I am a black man in a white world. In 1972, in 1947, at my birth in 1919, I know that I never had it made.

    Colin Kaepernick is not Jackie Robinson and America in 2016 is not the same as America in 1919, 1947 or 1972. But it does not take one of Jackie Robinson’s stature or experience to see and take issue with injustice and inequality which manifestly still exists.

    As I said in the earlier post, the First Amendment gives us just as much right to criticize Kaepernick as it gives him a right to protest in the manner in which he chooses. But if and when we do, we should not consider his case in a vacuum or criticize him as some singular or radical actor. Because some other people — people who have been elevated to a level which has largely immunized them from criticism — felt and feel the same way he does. It’s worth asking yourself, if you take issue, whether you take issue with the message or the messenger and why. Such inquiries might complicate one’s feelings on the matter, but they’re quite illuminative as well.

    (thanks to Kokujin for the heads up)

    Former Dodgers owner Frank McCourt is a sports owner once again

    File photo of Frank McCourt leaving Stanley Mosk Courthouse after testifying during his divorce trial in Los Angeles
    3 Comments

    There aren’t many major league ownership reigns which ended more ignominiously than Frank McCourt’s reign as Dodgers owner. He was granted access to one of business’ most exclusive clubs — one which being a convicted criminal or even a Nazi sympathizer cannot get you kicked out of — and somehow got kicked out. The clear lesson from his saga was that saddling your team with debt, using it as your own private piggy bank and exercising bad judgment at every possible turn will not get you drummed out of baseball but, by gum, having it all go public in a divorce case sure as heck will.

    McCourt landed pretty safely, though. By sheer luck, his being kicked out of ownership coincided with the vast appreciation of major league franchise values and the expiration of the Dodgers cable television deal. He may have left in disgrace, but he also left with a couple of billion dollars thanks to the genius of capitalism. At the time it was assumed he’d ride off into the sunset, continuing to make a mint off of parking at Dodgers games (he retained a big piece of that pie) and not get his hands messy with sports ownership again.

    Such assumptions were inoperative:

    The soccer club has suffered from poor financial decisions in recent years. So I guess it was a match made in heaven.