Yesterday Buster Olney asked several anonymous executives what they would offer free agents Stephen Drew and Kendrys Morales if they had a need for them. There were extended quotes from the executives talking about their value in both dollar terms — anywhere from $5 million to $10 million depending on the circumstances — and on the factors that might go into it, including their injury history, their lack of a spring and things like that.
A little bit ago union director Tony Clark put out a statement decrying Olney’s story, saying it violates the Collective Bargaining Agreement and can harm the value of Drew and Morales. He went further, saying that Commissioner Selig should investigate and unearth the anonymous sources for Olney’s story and punish those who spoke to him for what he calls collusive activities.
Let’s unpack this:
1. Yes, that kind of talk likely does violate the CBA. It could easily constitute collusion, by having executives signal to one another what to pay Drew and Morales, thereby messing with their ability to market themselves to teams. In this regard, Clark has a legitimate beef; but
2. There is little or no way Selig, even if he is inclined to agree with Clark, would be able to figure out who said this stuff to Olney. Neither Olney nor ESPN are going to tell him, that’s for damn sure, because journalism doesn’t work that way. What does he expect? Selig to sue ESPN as a means of pressuring them to cooperate with Major League Baseball, thereby causing them to spill the beans— oh, wait. That is already in MLB’s tool kit, so maybe he could expect that. I dunno.
But I do know one thing: Drew and Morales’ value has been harmed far more by the draft pick compensation/qualifying offer system that the MLBPA agreed to a couple of years ago than any potentially collusive stuff appearing in Olney’s little story. If Clark wants to prevent that from happening to players in the future, he had either best strongly advise players to accept qualifying offers or else find a way to reopen negotiations on free agent compensation.
The story of Rick Ankiel is well known by now. He was a phenom pitcher who burst onto the scene with the Cardinals in 1999 and into the 2000 season as one of the top young talents in the game. Then, in the 2000 playoffs, he melted down. He got the yips. Whatever you want to call it, he lost the ability to throw strikes and his pitching career was soon over. He came back, however, against all odds, and remade his career as a solid outfielder.
It’s inspirational and incredible. But there is a lot more to the story that we’ve ever known. We will soon, however, as Ankiel is coming out with a book. Today he took to the airwaves and shared some about it. Including some amazing stuff:
On drinking in his first start after the famous meltdown in Game One of the 2000 National League division series against the Braves:
“Before that game…I’m scared to death. I know I have no chance. Feeling the pressure of all that, right before the game I get a bottle of vodka. I just started drinking vodka. Low and behold, it kind of tamed the monster, and I was able to do what I wanted. I’m sitting on the bench feeling crazy I have to drink vodka to pitch through this. It worked for that game. (I had never drank before a game before). It was one of those things like the yipps, the monster, the disease…it didn’t fight fair so I felt like I wasn’t going to fight fair either.”
Imagine spending your whole life getting to the pinnacle of your career. Then imagine it immediately disintegrating. And then imagine having to go out and do it again in front of millions. It’s almost impossible for anyone to contemplate and, as such, it’s hard to judge almost anything Ankiel did in response to that when he was 21 years-old. That Ankiel got through that and made a career for himself is absolutely amazing. It’s a testament to his drive and determination.
A couple of weeks ago our president wrote one of his more . . . vexing tweets. He was talking about immigration when he whipped out the phrase . . . “Easy D”:
No one was quite sure what he meant by Easy D. Was it the older brother of N.W.A.’s founder? The third sequel to that Emma Stone movie from a few years back? So many questions!
Baseball Twitter had fun with it, though, with a lot of people wondering how they could work it in casually to their commentary:
It wasn’t a scout who did it, but twelve days after that, a player obliged Mr. McCullough:
I have no more idea what Turner was talking about with that than Trump was. We’ll have to wait for the full story in the L.A. Times. But I am going to assume Turner was doing McCullough a solid with that one rather than commenting on the president’s tweet. Either way, I’m glad he made the effort.
And before you ask: yes, it’s a slow news day.