Let us remember George Steinbrenner, not whitewash him

28 Comments

This morning I said “I’m not a believer in whitewashing things when someone dies because the
last thing we should be doing when we lose someone is telling lies that
push their true essence further away from us.”

I really mean that.  There are damn few saints in this world. Even fewer who become billionaire businessmen. George Steinbrenner wasn’t a saint. I suspect he’d be the last person to even suggest it.  Watching the day’s coverage unfold on ESPN and on the Internet, however, and the Big Stein has grown more saintly by the hour.

If you read Bud Selig’s statement about Steinbrenner you’d think that the guy was the salt of the Earth. Rather than mere niceties at the time of one’s passing — which I understand — it’s actively deceptive. Maybe Selig and Steinbrenner were friendly on a personal level, but the fact is that Selig’s entire rise to power as Commissioner was premised on his and a group of like-minded small-market owners’ opposition to Steinbrenner’s financial largess. Indeed, the story of baseball labor relations between the advent of free agency and the 1994-95 strike cannot be understood without reference to the battle between big clubs led by the likes of George Steinbrenner and small clubs led by the likes of Bud Selig.

But Bud Selig is, at his essence, a politician, so I understand why such flavor doesn’t make it into his official statements.  But how, then, do we account for the numerous talking heads who have shown up on my TV screen today painting, however unwittingly, an inaccurate or, at the very least, incomplete portrait of the man?

No, I don’t expect people in the Yankees family, widely defined, to offer up unvarnished truth about their patriarch on a day like today, but could ESPN or MLB Network have found someone today who could shed some insight into — as opposed to making mere footnotey mentions of — his felony conviction for illegal campaign contributions and obstruction of justice?  Or how about Steinbrenner paying Howie Spira $40,000 to dig up dirt on Dave Winfield so Steinbrenner might find a way to get out from under the ten-year contract he gave him?  And rather than merely use his parade of managers in the 1980s as a wide brush with which to paint color on The Boss, could someone be found who could point out that Steinbrenner’s erratic behavior in the 1980s probably did more to cost the Yankees championships than anything else that happened that decade?

I’m not suggesting that these uglier parts of the Steinbrenner legacy should be the lead story.  The man died just this morning for crying out loud.  But if you weren’t Steinbrenner’s family or his close friend, or if you didn’t work for or passionately root for the Yankees, it seems to me that you’re obligated to be thorough and balanced when it comes to covering his death.  The hagiography-to-news
ratio on the Death of George Steinbrenner is growing increasingly larger as the day progresses, however.

I stand by what I said about George Steinbrenner this morning. He was a great figure in baseball in general and for the Yankees in particular. His impact was massive and any true understanding of the game in 2010 is impossible without first understanding George Steinbrenner and his legacy.  The words “titan” and “icon” are thrown around too much when major figures pass, but they are entirely appropriate in the case of Big Stein.

But he was more than that.  In fact, he was a lot of things. The term “a real piece of work” probably describes him best, but under that very large umbrella lies rogue, champion, rake, father, felon, firebrand, leader, fighter and about dozen others I could think of.  I may even go so far as to say that the guy was — in the best sense of the term — a bit of a
sonofabitch too.  I bet he’d agree with me.

In light of that, I’m growing a bit distressed as the day goes on and King George starts to look more and more like Saint George.  It kind of galls me, really. Not because I have a thing against Steinbrenner — I really don’t — but because, when I die, I want people to remember me for what I truly was not for what they feel comfortable saying I was. To do otherwise is to whitewash and to whitewash is to paint over.

And once we’re painted over? We simply disappear.

UPDATE: Charles Pierce at the Globe managed to work in the sonofabitch angle.  The New York Times now has something with a color other than white as well.  And now Dave Brown at Big League Stew has a great post as well. The lesson: I write too damn fast sometimes. Next time I’ll wait for the backlash to come to me.

Danny Espinosa reportedly skipped Nationals Winterfest because of Adam Eaton

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 13: Danny Espinosa #8 of the Washington Nationals celebrates after teammate Chris Heisey #14 (not pictured) hits a two run home run in the seventh inning against the Los Angeles Dodgers during game five of the National League Division Series at Nationals Park on October 13, 2016 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Rob Carr/Getty Images)
Getty Images
8 Comments

According to Jorge Castillo of the Washington Post, Nationals infielder Danny Espinosa declined to attend the team’s annual Winterfest because of his dissatisfaction with management following their trade for outfielder Adam Eaton.

A source told Castillo that Espinosa’s unhappiness stemmed from a belief that the acquisition would jeopardize his starting role in 2017. With Eaton in center field, Trea Turner will likely return to his post at shortstop, leaving Espinosa out in the cold — or, as the case may be, on the bench. The move shouldn’t come as a big surprise to Espinosa, however, as Nationals’ GM Mike Rizzo spoke to the possibility of trading the infielder or reassigning him to a utility role back in early November.

Offensively, the 29-year-old had a down year in 2016, slashing just .209/.306/.378 with 24 home runs in 601 PA. Defensively, he still profiles among the top shortstops in the National League, with eight DRS (Defensive Runs Saved) and 8.3 Def (Defensive Runs Above Average) in his seventh year with the club.

Espinosa will reach free agency after the 2017 season.

Nick Cafardo: Red Sox should deal Pomeranz, not Buchholz

BOSTON, MA - SEPTEMBER 18: Drew Pomeranz #31 of the Boston Red Sox pitches during the first inning against the New York Yankees at Fenway Park on September 18, 2016 in Boston, Massachusetts. The Red Sox won 5-4. (Photo by Rich Gagnon/Getty Images)
Getty Images
11 Comments

The Red Sox might be trying to move the wrong pitcher, according to the Boston Globe’s Nick Cafardo. Cafardo revealed that while the Sox have been trying to market right-hander Clay Buchholz, more teams would be interested in trades involving southpaw Drew Pomeranz.

The club appears reluctant to deal Pomeranz, especially because his price tag comes in at a cool $4.7 million to Buchholz’s $13.5 million in 2017. Those who have already expressed interest in the veteran hurlers, including the Twins, Mariners and Royals, also seem put off by Buchholz’s salary requirements as he enters his 32nd year.

Health could be another factor preventing teams from jumping to make trade offers, as Cafardo quotes an AL executive who believes the “medicals on both Pomeranz and Buchholz probably aren’t that great.” Neither pitcher suffered any major injuries during the 2016 season, though Pomeranz missed just over a week of play due to forearm soreness.

Pomeranz outperformed his fellow starter in 2016, pitching to a 3.32 ERA and career-best 9.8 K/9 through 170 2/3 innings with the Padres and Red Sox. He got off to an exceptionally strong start in San Diego, where his ERA dropped to 2.47 through the first half of the year before the Padres dealt him to Boston for minor league right-hander Anderson Espinoza. Buchholz, on the other hand, struggled with a 4.78 ERA and saw a decline in both his BB/9 and K/9 rates as he worked out a career-low 1.69 K/BB through 139 1/3 innings with the Sox.