A’s vs. Giants in the fight for San Jose: “We’re talking about two immoveable objects”

56 Comments

Yahoo!’s Steve Henson gives us the state of the union over the MLB’s efforts to mediate the A’s-to-San Jose thing. The upshot: it’s ugly and there’s no easy solution, as the Giants aren’t even negotiating with the league over this, and some think they’ll sue if the A’s are allowed to move:

The Giants have attorneys close to their ownership group who made millions trying eminent domain cases. Owners agree not to sue MLB under any circumstances, but in that regard this could be ground-breaking if the A’s are allowed to break ground in San Jose.

“Some people believe the Giants would sue, other don’t think so,” the MLB executive said.

Call their bluff, Bud. Have your dormant committee release an actual report that outlines the actual need for the A’s to be in San Jose. Detail along with it the costs to the league if they don’t, the benefits to the league if they do and the costs to the Giants as well.  Then compare it to other potential relocation sites. I’m guessing the numbers point to it being a net gain for the A’s to be in San Jose as opposed to other markets, even if it costs the Giants some.

Point is: lay the groundwork for a compelling argument — both legally and on the public relations front — that the A’s moving to San Jose is the best for baseball overall.  Make a call that, even though it would cause short term strife for the Giants and other owners who fear for their territory rights, would, over time, pave the way for a more logical and economically beneficial arrangement of teams around population areas. Force the Giants to defend a stupid territorial system that promotes inefficiency.

Yes, this is a fantasy on my part. I don’t see Selig ever taking such a course of action.  Of course, given that he won’t, a franchise is being allowed to die on the vine, and I don’t know how anyone finds that acceptable.

Oh good, it’s “Yasiel Puig is a showboat” season

Getty Images
6 Comments

With the Los Angeles Dodgers punching their ticket to the World Series, Yasiel Puig is now going to be the subject of commentary by people who tend not to care about Yasiel Puig until it’s useful for them to write outraged columns or go on talk radio rants about baseball deportment.

We got a brief teaser of this last night when, after scoring the Dodgers’ ninth run on a Logan Forsythe double, TBS analyst Ron Darling criticized Puig for his “shenanigans” and “rubbing it in.” Never mind that his third base coach was waving him home and that, if he didn’t run hard, he was just as likely to be criticized for dogging it. In other news, baseball teams don’t stop trying in the fourth inning of baseball games, nor should they.

That was just an appetizer, though. The first real course of the “Puig is a problem” feast we’re likely to be served over the next week and a half comes from Phil Mushnick of the New York Post, who wrote it even before the Dodgers won Game 5 last night:

If you were raised to love baseball and to recognize the smart, winning kind from everything less, the Dodgers’ Yasiel Puig is insufferable. As the sport is diminished by professionals who disregard the basic act of running to first base as a matter of style, Puig, an incurable home-plate poser, often makes turning doubles and triples into singles appear effortless . . . In the postseason, Puig continues to behave as if he’s in the Home Run Derby. He even seems to relish his high-risk flamboyant foolishness despite frequent backfires.

This may as well be a fill in the blanks column from 2013 or 2014, when “Puig is a flashy showboater who costs his team more than he gives it” columns were all the rage. It ignores the fact that Puig, commonly dinged for being lazy, worked his butt off in 2017, particularly on defense, to the point where he has a strong case for a Gold Glove this year. It also ignores his .455/.538/.727 line in the NLDS sweep of the Diamondbacks and his .389/.500/.611 line against the Cubs in the NLCS. In the regular season he set career highs for games, homers, RBI, stolen bases and almost set a career high for walks despite having seventy fewer plate appearances than he did back in 2013 when he walked 67 times. He’s not the MVP candidate some thought he might be, but he’s a fantastic player who has been a key part of the Dodgers winning their first pennant in 29 years.

But the dings on Puig from the likes of Mushnick have rarely been about production. They’ve simply been about style and the manner in which he’s carried himself. To the extent those issues were legitimate points of criticism — particularly his tardiness, his relationships with his teammates and his at times questionable dedication — they have primarily been in-house concerns for the Dodgers, not the casual fan like Mushnick. On that score the Dodgers have dealt with Puig and, by all accounts, Puig has responded pretty well. An occasional lapse to be sure, but nothing which makes him a greater burden than a benefit. I mean, if he was, would be be batting cleanup in a pennant-clinching game?

So if the beef with Puig is not really about baseball, what could Phil Mushnick’s issue with him possible be?

I, for one, have no idea whatsoever.