Is the Dodgers’ bankruptcy one of the worst moments in baseball history?

56 Comments

Interesting idea floated in Buster Olney’s column this morning. It’s behind the ESPN paywall, but the gist is that, according to Olney, the Dodgers’ bankruptcy has to be one of the “10 worst chapters in Major League Baseball history.”

He doesn’t do a formal list or order them, but he throws out several potential top-10  (or bottom 10, depending on your point of view) moments.  The ones he names: segregation (which he says would be the worst, and I agree, even if it wasn’t specific to baseball), the Black Sox scandal, the Pete Rose gambling thing, steroids, collusion in the 1980s and the 1994-95 strike.

That’s six.  He says the Dodgers thing is the ninth or tenth worst.  For that to be true, there can’t be four worse moments in baseball history. I’m, not criticizing Buster’s list here — he’s making a bigger point in all of this — but for fun, let’s see if we can find four!

  • The cocaine scourge of the 70s and 80s has to be on that list.  People died. People’s lives and careers were ruined and the game was clearly impacted, both competitively and culturally.
  • Ray Chapman getting killed with a pitched baseball has to count, right? I mean this is a ballgame we’re playing here. If it freaking kills someone, that has to be a dark chapter.  And it can’t be dismissed as a freak thing, because it was the direct result of baseball’s general indifference to player safety in the name of saving some money by leaving dirty baseballs in the game longer, not suspending games due to darkness, etc.
  • Some may argue that this isn’t even the darkest chapter in Dodgers’ history, citing the move of the team from Brooklyn to Los Angeles. Not sure how I feel about that. Everyone wants to paint Walter O’Malley and/or Robert Moses as villains in the go-west drama, but there were multiple historical, financial and political factors in play there. And of course, baseball was going to go to California eventually. And let us not forget, it’s arrival there could be painted as a bright chapter depending on whether you lived in Los Angeles or Brooklyn. Or whether you were a baseball fan or one of the poor Mexicans who were kicked out of their homes under dubious circumstances to make room for Dodger Stadium. But that’s another story.
  • It’s hard to make this an actual “chapter” because it involves distinct incidents in time and space, but the untimely deaths of ballplayers like Lou Gehirg or Roberto Clemente — or the accident that ended Roy Campanella’s career — seem like far darker things than the Dodgers’ bankruptcy. Maybe that counts. Maybe not. I’m not sure.
  • Maybe this goes together with collusion or can be classified in a general chapter entitled “the owners’ exploitation of ballplayers over time,”  but I think the existence of the reserve system until the 1970s was simply awful and, unlike the Dodgers’ bankruptcy which is going to murder Frank McCourt’s balance sheet, the reserve system cost a lot of money to people who didn’t have it coming.

Maybe some of those don’t rate.  And of course I’m sure we could come up with more.  Either way, I like morose topics so I’m glad that Buster introduced it this morning.

As I sit here right now, though, I’m not going to put the Dodgers’ woes into the top 10.  Although feel free to convince me otherwise in the comments.

Sandy Alderson thinks Tim Tebow will play in the major leagues

Getty Images
16 Comments

Based on his track record so far I don’t think Tim Tebow deserves to play in the major leagues on the merits. Not even close. But then again, I’m not the general manager of the New York Mets, so I don’t get a say in that.

Sandy Alderson is the general manager, so his say carries a lot of weight. To that end, here’s what he said yesterday:

Noting the Tebow experiment has “evolved” into something greater, general manger Sandy Alderson on Sunday said, “I think he will play in the major leagues.”

To be fair, Alderson is pretty up front about the merits of Tebow’s presumed advancement to the bigs at some point. He didn’t say that it’s because Tebow has played his way up. He said this:

“He is great for the team, he is great for baseball, he was phenomenal for minor league baseball last year. The notion that he should have been excluded from the game because he is not coming through the traditional sources, I think is crazy. This is entertainment, too. And he quietly entertains us . . . He benefits the Mets because of how he conducts himself. He’s a tremendous representative of the organization.”

I take issue with Alderson’s comment about people thinking he shouldn’t be in the game because of his background. Most people who have been critical of the Tebow experiment have been critical because there is no evidence that he’s a good enough baseball player to be given the opportunities he’s been given. I mean, he advanced to high-A last year despite struggling at low-A and he’s going to start at Double-A this year in all likelihood despite struggling in high-A. If he does make the bigs, it will likewise come despite struggles in Double-A and maybe Triple-A too.

That said: I don’t mind if they promote Tebow all the way up as long as they’re being honest about why they’re doing it and aren’t trying to get everyone on board with some cockamamie idea that Tebow belongs on the baseball merits. If they do put him in the majors it’ll be because he’s a draw and a good promotion and because people generally like him and he’s not hurting anyone and I can’t take issue with that.

That’s basically what Alderson is saying here and if that’s the case, great. I mean, not great, because Tebow in the bigs will likely also mean that the Mets aren’t playing meaningful games, but great in the sense of “fine.” Baseball is entertainment too. No sense in pretending it isn’t.