Prince Fielder, Cecil Fielder and the significance of family

44 Comments

Cecil Fielder was making the media rounds yesterday following his son’s signing with the Detroit Tigers. It was understandable given his own history in Detroit.

Thing is, Cecil and Prince have a very complicated history and, in recent years, have been reported to have no relationship at all. The whole story is known only to them, but the contours of it seem to be that (a) Cecil was not an attentive father to Prince when he was growing up; (b) his relationship with Prince’s mother was not good; and (c) Cecil is alleged to have squandered Prince’s signing bonus on personal debts.  Kind of ugly all around.

Cecil was quoted several years ago as saying that Prince had shut him out of his life. Prince, when asked, will not respond to any questions about his father.  Yesterday, however, Cecil had this to say about the relationship:

“We’re having a few chats. We’re doing a lot better than we were. Time heals all wounds, man. Everybody has to come back together at some point.”

It’s a difficult subject. On the one hand it’s the kind of thing that shouldn’t be any of our business. But it’s been out there because, in the past, Cecil put it out there in interviews and, of course, because both of the Fielders are well-known public figures. And of course now that Prince has gone to the team with which his father found his biggest fame, it’s going to come up a lot more simply because it’s part of a new and wholly understandable dynastic narrative.

Outside of that (and outside of baseball, actually) the subject fascinates me because of what it says about the value and purpose of family.

I have a great relationship with my parents. It’s never been in question because I had a great childhood and they’re good people and all of that.  But at the same time, I don’t necessarily subscribe to the idea that you have to make a special effort to have such a relationship with family members no matter the situation. If your parents (or siblings or whatever) are jerks or bad people or have otherwise hurt you, I don’t see the need to try any harder to repair that relationship than you would to repair a friendship or another kind of acquaintance. Or to simply not try at all if that’s your choice.

Yet I feel like I’m in the minority here. I think most people default to the “but they’re family,” idea, and believe it to be incumbent upon a person to always — eventually anyway — try to repair such relationships. And think that a difficult or flawed relationship with a family member is better than no relationship at all.

I can’t see that. Sure, if a family member with whom you’ve had a falling out wants to try and make amends you give that person the same chance that you’d give someone else, but I don’t think you give them considerably more chances or, even further, continue to try to reach out to them out of obligation even if they continue to be a jerk out of some notion that shared blood makes the relationship so much more necessary.

I’m not saying I’m right. I may be very wrong. And like I said before, I have a wonderful relationship with my family so perhaps I’m just taking it all for granted and I’m totally missing the point. I’m curious to hear others’ thoughts.

Anyway, the point of all of this is that I don’t see a father-son reconciliation as some necessary component of Prince Fielder going to Detroit. And, even though it would be nicer if the two of them had a good relationship than a poor one, I hope that Prince doesn’t get pestered too much about it by virtue of the public’s need to seek closure or resolution of a relationship that, by all rights, shouldn’t concern us.

Rob Manfred is prepared to implement a pitch clock unilaterally for 2018

Getty Images
17 Comments

Rob Manfred has long been on record wanting to speed up the pace of play in baseball and, to that end, last year proposed a 20-second pitch clock. Pursuant to baseball’s Collective Bargaining Agreement, he could not implement that unilaterally last year. However if, one year after a proposed rules change, no agreement can be reached with the union, he has the power to impose the originally-proposed change unilaterally.

Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic says today that he is prepared to do just that — imposing that pitch clock and a rule limiting mound visits — for the 2018 season. He further says that the players might very well allow him to do that, despite the fact that they and Manfred are currently negotiating an agreed set of rule changes.

Why? Because, Rosenthal says, if they step aside and let Manfred do it by himself and the rules changes prove unpopular, he’ll take the blame for it:

If enough players oppose the changes, they could absolve themselves of responsibility and allow Manfred to force the issue by introducing the two key elements of MLB’s plan: a 20-second pitch clock and reduction in mound visits. The onus then would be on Manfred to deal with any public fallout and unintended consequences the new rules might trigger.

I’m not sure, based on the story itself, if that’s just Rosenthal’s speculation or if it’s actually a potential union strategy to do nothing and let Manfred own the rules changes. If it’s the latter, though, it’s a monumentally stupid strategy. For a few reasons.

The first and biggest reason is that it is not a union’s job to play public relations games. It’s a union’s job to make workplace conditions as good as possible for its membership via bargaining. Rob Manfred is required to engage with the union on these rules changes for a limited time and is doing so, apparently in good faith. The union, while not possessing great leverage here, has at least some ability to put its two cents in on a rule that impacts all of its members and could, conceivably, make the rules a bit better for them. Barring that, they could at least attempt to obtain some sort of concession in another area in order to get their agreement to the rule. Blowing the chance to have input on work rules because of a chance to win a public relations fight is an abdication of responsibility for a labor union.

Second: there is not going to be any sort of public relations win for the union regardless of what happens. Indeed, to even think there could be one is to ignore what has happened with every rules change in baseball history and how they have played with the public.

No matter how much some people complain about a change in baseball — and some people love to complain — most folks eventually get used them. The DH rule just celebrated its 50th anniversary. People moan, but it’s just part of life. Same with interleague play and divisional realignment and expanded playoffs and no-pitch intentional walks and the takeout slide rules and everything else. The complaints about such things are loud, but they’re not deeply felt or widely felt by any but a handful of self-proclaimed traditionalists. The game chugs on and most people get used to it without there ever being the kind of P.R. fallout that puts egg on the league’s face or which puts the players in some better light. If the pitch clock rule is imposed, people will complain a lot and lot of ink will be spilled about it, but it won’t do anything to substantially harm the league let alone help the players.

That speaks to a larger historical lesson about public relations and players, of course: they’re almost always going to be seen as the bad guys by fans, no matter what they do.

Owners abused their power for a century and fans didn’t care. Starting in the 1960s, when the players finally began to effectively assert their leverage, the players were cast as greedy mercenaries. An owner gives out a foolishly large contract and the player is blamed for taking it. The owners band together in an illegal scheme to harm the players’ interest and the owner who orchestrated it is inducted into the Hall of Fame. The DH rule gets imposed and players who excel as designated hitters are viewed poorly by the writers and the public when it comes time to consider their Hall of Fame case. A new rule gets implemented to deal with slides and it’s not “The Rob Manfred slide rule” it’s “The Chase Utley Rule.” The players are the visible ones. They bear the brunt of just about anything that happens.

Which is to say, if the pitch clock creates some weird situations or controversies, the players involved in those situations and controversies are going to be the ones to take the blame. Just imagine a Dodgers-Giants game that turns on some weirdness involving Madison Bumgarner taking too long to deliver a pitch to Yasiel Puig, forcing in the walkoff run. Imagine that both Bumgarner and Puig saying the other was to blame. Imagine that the umpires messed up the application of the rule. You think Rob Manfred is going to catch hell for it as opposed to the players and the umpires involved? Hell no. Giants fans will yell that Puig did something that should’ve caused the clock to be reset. Dodgers fans will blame Bumgarner for taking too long. It’ll dominate the news for a couple of days but it won’t be the league and its owners taking crap for it.

Against that backdrop, why in the heck would the union try to win some P.R. battle? Screw the P.R. battle. Union leadership — including Tony Clark and the player reps — should negotiate for the best rules possible for the players they represent and let the public relations chips fall where they may.

Will they do that? Based on how the last few management-labor battles have gone, I don’t have a lot of confidence. In recent years the union has seemed far more focused on relatively short term and picayune concerns while trying not to look like the bad guys to fans. Meanwhile, the meat and potatoes labor issues which sometimes require a union to take unpopular stances in the long term, big picture interests of the players have been dominated by the owners. Ask the free agents who can’t find a team because the luxury tax is far lower, compared to revenues, now than it was 15 years ago and is serving as a defacto salary cap. Ask the guys who are being lowballed because of the qualifying offer.

It appears as though we’ll have a pitch clock in 2018 one way or another. The players need to decide pretty quickly if they’re going to have some say in that process or if they’re going to allow themselves to be marginalized in the management of the game even more than they already have been.