Some baseball writers believe they are the morality police

32 Comments

In the course of Michael S. Schmidt’s recent column on Jeff Bagwell, Ross Newhan, the retired Los Angeles Times writer and still-current Hall of Fame voter, describes what he sees as the role of the electorate:

“Somebody said we are not the morality police, but yet I think we are. If we aren’t, who is? Part of our job is that we are custodians of the game’s history.”

I get why someone can think that. The Hall of Fame ballot invites voters to weigh-in on the character of candidates.  But there’s a big difference between passing on a single player’s character and being “the morality police” or “the custodian of the game’s history.”

In the former instance, a voter is merely judging one player.  If limited to that, one must necessarily look at Bagwell’s record and note that there is not a single thing on his professional resume that could be viewed as a character deficiency. In the latter instance, however, voters give themselves permission to read all of baseball’s sins of the Steroid Era into Bagwell’s biography.  They feel they are protecting some sacred institution, not merely judging one man. In this case it’s easy, then, for a writer to explain away the injustice he might visit upon Jeff Bagwell. After all: he believes he is doing something more important than passing on Bagwell.  He’s protecting the Hall of Fame! Even though there is nothing on the ballot or in his marching orders that tasks him with this.

And why would there be? The Hall of Fame is capable of protecting itself. It does so by setting its eligibility standards. It could change them in five minutes if it felt threatened. It hasn’t done so in response to the steroids epidemic. That should tell the writers something. Sadly, it has not.

The Hall of Fame is not heaven, my fellow baseball writers, you are not St. Peter at the gate, and no one — not even Jose Canseco — has written baseball’s book of life.  Have a sense of humility about you. Understand that your role is not to be baseball’s moral arbiters, writ-large.  You are to look at one player at a time and judge him accordingly. If you have nothing negative to say about him, and if his accomplishments are sufficient, vote him in.

Miguel Cabrera is being sued for reduced child support payments

Jason Miller/Getty Images
11 Comments

Tigers first baseman/DH Miguel Cabrera is being sued by a woman from Orlando, Florida who claims that he “unilaterally” reduced the amount of his monthly child support payments, Tony Paul of The Detroit News reports. Cabrera, who has three children with his wife Rosangel, also had two children with Belkies Mariela Rodriguez in 2013 and 2015.

Cabrera pays more than $6,200 per month in child support and helped Rodriguez purchase a nearly $1 million house. Rodriguez’s attorney calls Cabrera’s monthly payments “inadequate” because her children don’t quite have the same standard of living as Cabrera’s three children with Rosangel. Cabrera’s legal team accused Rodriguez of “embarking on a mission to extort additional moneys to be used for her benefit under the guise of child support.”

Cabrera, 34, signed an eight-year, $248 million contract extension with the Tigers in March 2014, which officially began in 2016. He made $22 million in 2014-15, $28 million in 2016-17, and will earn $30 million from 2018-21 and $32 million in 2022-23.

Along with reduced child support payments, Rodriguez alleges Cabrera left her “high and dry” when it came to monthly expenses with the house he helped her purchase.

Cabrera has requested that the judge recuse herself from his case, as her husband has a title with Rodriguez’s lawyers’ law firm following a merger. He is scheduled to be questioned under oath during a videotaped deposition on Thursday in Orlando. Rodriguez is scheduled for her deposition on Friday.

Cabrera is not the only player to find himself embroiled in such a case. Bartolo Colon was also sued for back child support for a “secret family” last year.