Earlier today I wrote that it was quite a sight to see the Yankees and Derek Jeter waging such a public war over contract negotiations. This is especially true given that — a mere two months ago — the league and the union came to an agreement under which both sides vowed to “Restrict the abilities of the Clubs, players and agents to conduct their free agent negotiations through use of the media.” Obviously this rule — to the extent it is a rule, and not merely some aspirational thing — isn’t scaring anyone. The question, then, is what can be done about this sort of thing?
The answer: nothing. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop this kind of stuff.
The reason for this — at least in the case of Jeter and the Yankees — is simple: Major League Baseball can’t punish the Yankees without the Yankees protesting that they are merely countering what Jeter’s agent is doing. They also cannot punish Jeter or his agent without having to go though the union, and I’m sure both Jeter and his agent can tell a plausible story about how their comments to the press were necessitated by something the Yankees did first. Ultimately both sides would claim that the other was acting unfairly, and thus policing a p.r. problem would dredge up an actual contract negotiation dispute that the new rules were designed to head off in the first place. Why would baseball kick that hornet’s nest? Why would the union? Why would anyone?
But really, I suspect that the media rules weren’t designed to address these public, on-the-record spats. I think they were designed to address Scott Boras’ “mystery teams” and those whispers about how teams “have questions about Player X’s health” that pop up all winter, unfairly killing — or unfairly making — the market for a free agent. What can be done about those?
Even less, I’m afraid. Quick: when was the last time a source was revealed? When was the last time someone got fired for leaking a team’s dirty laundry? We live in an age when people leak sensitive stuff related to the government and the military with impunity because technology makes it fantastically easy to do so. If the Department of Homeland Security, with all of its employees and computer experts can’t track down their own internal leakers, how can the Pirates’ front office do it with their half-dozen clerical workers? They can’t. And they won’t, because they have a baseball team to run. As do the Yankees. And Casey Close and Bud Selig and Mike Weiner all have other things to do too.
The stuff about no longer negotiating through the media was nice back when no one was negotiating anything. But now that they are, those ideals are rendered quaint.
There’s an interesting article over that the New York Times in the wake of the Colin Kaepernick stuff. This one is about the history of the National Anthem at sporting events.
The anthem is a fixture for as long as those of us reading this blog have been attending games and it’d be weird if it wasn’t there. But it hasn’t always been there, the Times notes. Indeed, it was not a regular fixture until 1942 when it was added for the obvious reason that we were at war. The other major sports leagues all adopted the anthem soon after. The NBA at the inception of the league in 1946 and the NHL in the same year. The NFL’s spokesman doesn’t mention a year, but notes that it’s a non-negotiable part of the game experience. The non-negotiability of it is underscored by the comment from the MLS spokesman who notes that they felt that they had no choice but to play the anthem when that league began play in the 1990s.
I like the anthem at ballgames. It just seems like part of the experience. I like it for its own sake, at least if the performance isn’t too over the top, and I like it because it serves as a nice demarcation between all of the pregame b.s. and the actual game starting.
But this article reminds us that there is no immutable structural reason for the anthem at games. Other countries don’t play their own anthems at their sporting events. We don’t play it before movies or plays or other non-sports performances. It’s a thing that we do which, however much of a tradition it has become, is somewhat odd when you think about it for a moment. And which has to seem pretty rote to the actual ballplayers who hear it maybe 180 times a year.
Rangers reliever Jeremy Jeffress was arrested on Friday for driving while intoxicated (DWI). According to a report from WFAA-TV in Dallas, Jeffress changed lanes without signaling and almost hit a car. While he was undergoing sobriety tests, he could not keep his balance or stand on one leg. His blood-alcohol content registered at .115.
Major League Baseball has opted not to suspend Jeffress as he has voluntarily chosen to check into an inpatient rehabilitation clinic, Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports reports. He’s expected to spend about a month at the clinic, which is based in Houston. There is still a possibility Jeffress can rejoin the Rangers in time for the postseason.
Jeffress issued a statement, which Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports provided:
This is not the first time Jeffress has had trouble with substance abuse. He was suspended 50 games in 2007 after testing positive for a second time for a drug of abuse, which was marijuana. He tested positive again in June 2009 and was suspended 100 games. It was later revealed that Jeffress suffers from juvenile epilepsy and he was self-medicating with marijuana.
Hopefully, his time in rehab helps him recover from substance abuse. Substance abuse is an issue about which people have a shortage of empathy, especially when it comes to celebrities, including athletes.
The Rangers acquired Jeffress along with catcher Jonathan Lucroy from the Brewers at the August 1 trade deadline. They sent prospects Lewis Brinson, Luis Ortiz, and a player to be named to Milwaukee. In nine appearances with the Rangers, Jeffress has a 4.00 ERA and a 6/5 K/BB ratio.