Jonny Gomes met the media before last night’s Boston Baseball Writer’s dinner and he had some choice words for Alex Rodriguez, reports the Boston Herald:
“He does steroids or whatever, it sucks. He does this or that, it sucks. He’s always in the news, it sucks,” the Red Sox left fielder told the Herald yesterday before the 75th annual Boston Baseball Writers’ dinner. “But this is the players’ union he’s going against. It’s all of us. Not a real good idea . . . I don’t think it’s really a good idea to go after our union. Down to my (expletive) kids, down to the benefits we have, down to our retirement fund, the union makes our lives better. We pay dues to the union for our rights.”
This is not the first time Gomes has voiced his opinion on A-Rod. Back in August when Rodriguez returned from the disabled list and played while appealing his then-211-game suspension, Gomes spoke out against PED users in general and, with specific reference to Rodriguez, said “I hope our dues aren’t being used for his lawyers’ fees.”
Gomes is certainly entitled to his opinion and his opinion on Rodriguez is in the clear majority based on everything we’ve heard about player sentiments on the matter. At the same time, when union members, like Gomes, are on record saying that he’d prefer that the union not defend A-Rod, and when his opinions on A-Rod are later shown to be quite in step with other members and union leadership — really, what Gomes is saying here echoes exactly what union leadership told the players just the other day — it’s not hard to understand how someone like A-Rod can come away believing that maybe, just maybe, the union didn’t have his back. Which is the central claim in the portion of the lawsuit which relates to the MLBPA.
The New York Times has a blistering report on the New Yankee Stadium Community Benefits Fund. The Fund is the charity the Yankees created in 2006 as a means of making up for the negative impact the construction New Yankee Stadium had on the surrounding community, primarily via its taking over 25 acres of parkland.
The idea of the Fund was a good one: to distribute $40 million in cash grants and sports equipment, and 600,000 free baseball tickets to community organizations in the Bronx over four decades. And it has been distributing funds and tickets. As the Times reports, however, the manner in which it has done so raises some red flags. Such as:
- Charitable donations have, in an amazing coincidence, often gone to other charities which share common board members with the New Yankee Stadium Fund;
- Funds have gone to many wealthy groups in affluent parts of the Bronx far away from the Stadium while the area around the stadium remains one of the most impoverished in the nation. For example, a private school in a wealthy part of the borough and a rec center in a gated community have gotten a lot money that, one would think anyway, could be and should be devoted to organizations closer to the ballpark that are in greater need; and
- There has been almost no transparency or oversight of the Fund. Reports which were supposed to have been submitted have not been. And no one, apart from the Times anyway, seems to care. The Yankees certainly don’t seem to. Indeed, as the article notes, the team has worked hard to keep the Fund’s operations out of its hands. They just got their new ballpark and write the checks and hand out the tickets. Everything else is someone else’s problem.
Cronyism in private philanthropy is not uncommon. As is a lack of oversight. Often it’s the best connected people who receive the benefit of such funds, not the people most in need. This is especially true in charities whose creation was not born of a philanthropic impulse as much as it was born of a need to put a good face on some not-so-good business dealings.
If the Times’ report is correct — and the lack of anyone coming forward to dispute it on the record despite the Times’ requests that they do — it appears as if the New Yankee Stadium Community Benefits Fund is one of those sorts of charities.
We’re not talking the 100 meters here. We’re talking practical baseball sprinting. That’s defined by the StatCast folks at MLB as “feet per second in a player’s fastest one-second window,” while sprinting for the purposes of, you know, winning a baseball game.
StatCast ranked all players who have at least 10 “max effort” runs this year. I won’t give away who is at the top of this list, but given that baseball’s speedsters tend to get a lot of press you will not be at all surprised. As for the bottom of the list, well, the Angels don’t pay Albert Pujols to run even when he’s not suffering from late career chronic foot problems, so they’ll probably let that one go. I will say, however, that I am amused that the third slowest dude in baseball is named “Jett,” however.
Lately people have noticed some odd things about home run distances on StatCast, suggesting that maybe their metrics are wacko. And, of course, their means of gauging this stuff is proprietary and opaque, so we have no way of knowing if their numbers are off the reservation or not. As such, take all of the StatCast stuff you see with a grain of salt.
That said, even if the feet-per-second stuff is wrong here, knowing that Smith is faster than Jones by a factor of X is still interesting.