Marvin Miller

Marvin Miller sets the record straight on Jim Palmer and the union

7 Comments

A couple of weeks ago Maury Chass and some others wrote about Marvin Miller’s Hall of Fame candidacy which, regrettably, has yet to be successful.  Chass made mention of Miller’s recent pessimism regarding his chances, and quoted Miller dismissing the makeup of the Veteran’s Committee in whose hands his Hall of Fame case currently rests. Specifically, Chass quoted Miller talking about Jim Palmer. You can read the details of that here and here.

Yesterday I received an email from Marvin Miller’s son, Peter Miller.  Peter explained that his father doesn’t use a computer, and that he’s just now reading printouts of some of the things that were written regarding the Palmer comments.  He passed along a statement from Marvin Miller, which he asked to be published (see below). He also gave me Marvin Miller’s phone number so that I could confirm it all.  Anyone who has any journalism training knows that you have to make that call. I have no journalism training. But I made the call anyway because Marvin Miller is a personal hero, and there was no way I wasn’t going to talk to him when given the chance.

I am happy to report that most of our conversation was off the record. Happy because that meant that Miller was candid and fun and still sharp at age 93, and the 20 minutes I spent on the phone with him is easily one of the highlights of my adult life.  No, he didn’t dish dirt — that wasn’t the point — but he shared a lot. Among the topics: the makeup of the Hall of Fame and his candidacy. His family. His legacy. The difficulty of writing a book, due to all of the time alone it requires. Curt Flood. Lawyer stuff. Bowie Kuhn. Some other things.

The biggest overall takeaway from the conversation: the the extent Miller is ever portrayed as bitter or angry or crotchety about not having been elected to the Hall of Fame, it is an inaccurate portrayal. He is conflicted, yes, and understandably so, but he struck me as someone quite comfortable with his legacy as it is, thank you, and views the matter with wry amusement more than anything else. At least he did this morning.

The biggest factual takeaway was an observation he made relating to union dynamics. Unlike most unions, where the real push for formation and early activism comes from the have-nots in the ranks, the baseball union was always strongly supported by players at the top. This kind of surprised me because you often hear anecdotes about so-and-so star player didn’t see the point because he was already making six figures and getting endorsements. Those, however, were the exceptions, not the rule.

Which brings us back to Palmer.  Miller said that his conversation with Chass that led to the anti-Palmer quote was premised on a misunderstanding and maybe a misstatement or two that came in the course of a wide-ranging conversation.  Here is his official statement on the matter:

“From the beginning of the Major League Baseball Players Association in 1966, and continuing throughout his entire outstanding pitching career, Jim Palmer was a voluntary, supportive, dues-paying member of the union, during a period which included the strikes of 1972 and 1981.

“My references to Jim Palmer were confused with my descriptions of the substitutions made this year in the management section of the Hall of Fame’s voting committee. I doubt if anyone would quarrel with the description of Jerry Reinsdorf, who is new to the committee this year, as anti-union. He wears that badge proudly.

“The clue to the inaccuracy is in the reference to Jim Palmer’s role in 1969. I am well aware there was no strike in 1969, so there could have been no reference to crossing a picket line in that year. I am also well aware that Jim was on the disabled list when the 1969 season started and had been on that list for more than two years. So he could not have been talking about going past a non-existent picket line.”

Thanks to Peter Miller for passing it along. And thanks to Marvin Miller for sharing a bit of his Monday morning with me. I appreciate that he’s conflicted about it all, and I assume that, once again, the Veteran’s Committee will pass him over. But personally speaking, I hope Marvin Miller is elected to the Hall of Fame this year. Without him, Cooperstown’s status as the keeper of baseball history is laughable.

It’s OK to not like someone on the team you root for

St. Louis Cardinals' Yadier Molina celebrates as he arrives home after hitting a solo home run during the fourth inning of a baseball game against the San Francisco Giants Monday, Aug. 17, 2015, in St. Louis. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson)
4 Comments

There were a series of interesting comments to the Yadier Molina story this morning. The first commenter, a Cardinals fan, said he’s never really cared for Molina. Other Cardinals fans took issue with that, wondering how on Earth a Cardinals fan could not like Yadi.

While I’ll grant that Molina is a particularly popular member of the Cardinals, while I personally like his game and his overall persona, and while I can’t recall ever meeting a Cards fan who didn’t like him, why is it inconceivable that someone may not?

Whether you “like” a player is an inherently subjective thing. You can like players who aren’t good at baseball. You can dislike ones who are. You can like a player’s game who, as a person, seems like a not great guy. You can dislike a player’s game or his personality for any reason as well. It’s no different than liking a type of music or food or a type of clothing. Baseball players, to the fans anyway, are something of an aesthetic package. They can please us or not. We can choose to separate the art from the artist, as it were, and ignore off-the-field stuff or give extra credit for the off-the-field stuff. Dowhatchalike.

No matter what the basis is, “liking” a player on your favorite team is up to one person: you. And, as I’ve written elsewhere recently, someone not liking something you like does not give you license to be a jackass about it.

A-Rod’s mansion is featured in Architectural Digest

Alex Rodriguez
5 Comments

For a couple of years people worried if A-Rod would sully the Yankees Superior Brand. Given how they’re playing these days I wonder if A-Rod should be more worried about the Yankees sullying his brand.

He resurrected his baseball career last year. He’s cultivated a successful corporate identity. He’s in a relationship with a leading Silicon Valley figure. It’s all aces. And now it’s total class, as his home is featured in the latest issue of Architectural Digest:

Erected over the course of a year, the 11,000-square-foot retreat is a showstopper, with sleek forms and striking overhangs that riff on midcentury modernism, in particular the iconic villas found at Trousdale Estates in Beverly Hills. Unlike Rodriguez’s previous Florida home, the Coral Gables house is laid out on just one story so the interiors would connect directly to the grounds. Says Choeff, “Alex wanted to accentuate the indoor-outdoor feel.”

There are a lot of photos there.

I don’t think I have much in common with Alex Rodriguez on any conceivable level, but I do like his taste in architecture and design. I’m all about the midcentury modernism. Just wish I had the paycheck to be more about it like my man A-Rod here.

Video: Yadier Molina does pushups after being brushed back, gets hit

Screen Shot 2016-05-03 at 9.21.21 AM
17 Comments

The best part of this sequence is not that Molina successfully evaded an inside pitch or that, in doing so, he hit the dirt and did some pushups. It’s not even the part where, after that, het got back up and knocked a single to left field.

No, the best part is the applause from the crowd. Very respectful fan base in St. Louis. They’d even applaud an opposing player who showed such a great work ethic. Or so I’m told.

 

Justin Verlander and Kate Upton are engaged

Detroit Tigers pitcher Justin Verlander, left, and model Kate Upton pose for a photograph during second half NBA All-Star Game basketball action in Toronto on Sunday, Feb. 14, 2016. (Mark Blinch/The Canadian Press via AP) MANDATORY CREDIT
Associated Press
9 Comments

Justin Verlander and Kate Upton have been a couple for a long time. And dudes like me have been writing about them for a long time because, well, Justin Verlander and Kate Upton.

They’ve fallen a bit off the radar in recent years thanks to Verlander taking a step back from Cy Young contender status and Upton’s profile likewise receding a bit, but if anything that probably helped things out given how hard it probably is to live a life with paparazzi hovering every time you want to out and get a burger or something.

In any event, those two crazy kids have made it work. Made it work so well that Verlander gave Upton a big fat rock that she showed off at last night’s Met Ball, which is a fundraising gala for the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Check it out:

Screen Shot 2016-05-03 at 8.20.56 AM

When you’re on a $180 million contract you can afford stuff like that, I guess.

Anyway, it looks like Upton enjoyed the fancy, star-studded gala in New York. I’m sure Verlander had a good time on the Tigers’ off-day in Cleveland. There’s a lot to do in Cleveland if you know where to look.