Hall of Fame voter continues to write in Pete Rose because, um, it’s cold in April

68 Comments

Really, that pretty much sums up this guy’s Hall of Fame column. Despite Pete Rose being ineligible and absent from the Hall of Fame ballot, Marc Maturo of the Rockland County Times — who has a Hall of Fame vote despite the fact he hasn’t covered baseball for 27 years — writes in Pete Rose’s name every year.

Why? Because how can baseball bar Pete Rose due to his lack of integrity when baseball itself lacks integrity? OK, I would at least give such a charge of hypocrisy a hearing. He starts with ticket prices being high, but ultimately all Maturo seems to be on about is how it gets cold in April and October:

And this is not to mention opening the season in weather better suited to curling than to baseball, and ending in weather also best suited to curling than to baseball. Baseball is, after all, “The Summer Game.” But don’t tell this to players seen in postseason dugouts sporting parkas, Trapper’s hats and arctic hand warmers; and don’t tell that to the very people who make it all possible, the suckers, er, fans, who also can be seen sporting Antarctic-like gear, wrapped wonderfully in blankets. Integrity my foot!

Also bugging him: no day games for the World Series. Then he goes back to complaining about “blizzard baseball.” Then he makes his pro-Pete Rose case. Starting with this:

If we have to depend on Rose’s word alone, there’s good reason to accept it.

Given that Rose has spent over two decades lying his hustling butt off, I’m not sure why that is, but go read Maturo’s column if you want to hear the case. It has mostly to do with the fact that Rose played hard and such.

Anyway, that’s the latest from the BBWAA and its strange rules which allow guys who haven’t covered baseball since the Reagan administration to vote for the Hall of Fame while denying that right to a huge number of active, working baseball writers.

Report: Jung-Ho Kang not granted a visa to enter the United States

Getty Images
2 Comments

This could be a problem for the Pirates.

Ballwriter Sung Min Kim tweets that, according to a Korean report, which you can read here if you know Korean, Pirates infielder Jung-Ho Kang has been denied a visa to enter the United States. The report just broke this morning and has yet to hit the English language press.

He adds that the report suggests that Kang, who was just convicted of a third DUI in Korea, may have a DUI conviction in a third country, though that part is unconfirmed. It’s also unclear whether that, or the mere fact of his conviction in Korea, has held up his visa.

Either way, Kang has yet to see a day of camp and will almost certainly not be ready to start the season for the Pirates, even if he gets his visa today. It sounds, however, like this could be a more drawn out process. We’ll stay tuned.

DOJ settles antirust lawsuit against cable companies who don’t carry Dodgers games

Getty Images
7 Comments

Last November, the U.S. Department of Justice sued AT&T, accusing its subsidiary, DirecTV, of being the ringleader in a plot in which it conspired with Cox Communications, Charter Communications and AT&T cable (then a separate company), to refuse to carry SportsNet LA, the Dodger-owned TV channel in violation of antitrust laws.

Now that lawsuit is over. The DOJ settled with AT&T last night.

The bad news: no part of the settlement obligates DirecTV or any of the other alleged co-conspirators to carry Dodgers games or to even negotiate to that end. There is likewise no fine or truly substantive penalty. It’s basically a “do not do this again!” agreement with some antitrust training requirements for executives and some orders to monitor their communications about these things.

“We are pleased to have resolved this matter to the satisfaction of all parties,” an AT&T spokesman said yesterday, likely in the tone of a guy who is pretty happy to have had a major antitrust suit against him settled so quickly.

When the suit was filed, I anticipated a settlement, as most antitrust suits brought by the DOJ are settled. Such a settlement could’ve featured a cash penalty or, more significantly, a brokered agreement between the parties in question in lieu of a cash settlement that could’ve led to Dodgers games being carried on more channels. After all, more competition is the end game of the Antirust Division.

As it is, however, it’s hard to see this as anything other than a surrender by the DOJ and a victory for the those carriers who coordinated their efforts to not carry the Dodgers.

An open question, unanswered in anyone’s statements yesterday, is whether this settlement is 100% about the merits of the case — keeping in mind that the DOJ tends not to file antitrust suits unless they think they can win, instead preferring to negotiate first — or whether it represents a new set of laxer priorities when it comes to antitrust enforcement from the Trump Administration and AG Jeff Sessions.