David Ortiz rips MLB for punishing Brandon Workman but not David Price

33 Comments

CLEVELAND — For the most part, the Red Sox took the high road in regard to the news that pitcher Brandon Workman was suspended for six games for his actions in last Friday’s showdown with Tampa Bay — and the corresponding lack of discipline taken toward the Rays’ David Price.

Manager John Farrell maintained a diplomatic tact, saying the Red Sox had presented their side of the confrontation and have to deal with the fallout. Workman, who is appealing the suspension and will pitch as scheduled Wednesday, continued to maintain that he wasn’t throwing at Evan Longoria.

But David Ortiz showed no such restraint.

“[The Rays] started everything and we’ve got to pay for it, basically,” fumed Ortiz, hit in the back in the first inning by Price, who went unpunished. “That’s the message I’m getting. I don’t have any answer for it. But like I say, man, there’s way too much evidence now that he hit me on purpose and the funny thing is we’re the ones getting fines and suspensions, all that kind of stuff.

“I guess the rules are not for everyone.”

And while Workman continued to insist that the ball slipped when he threw up and behind Longoria several innings later, Ortiz was more direct about his teammate’s motivation.

“He was supposed to back up his teammate — that’s what he did,” said Ortiz. “I don’t want to see nobody getting hit or hurt. But to be honest with you, nobody planned Workman going out there and trying to hit Longoria, which he missed. But at least he sent a message — you hit my players, I hit yours.”

[RELATED: Sox can’t get ‘elusive’ hit with runners on]

Ortiz still isn’t buying Price’s original assertion that he was trying to establish his fastball inside when he drilled Ortiz in the back in the first inning.

“Bro, the guy gave out 8 walks in 80 innings,” said Ortiz. “You know what you’re doing out there. In my case, when he hit me, I was a little confused. As the game went by, I started seeing things different. That’s why I was so angry after the game. I think MLB should [review] this and come up with the real deal because I don’t think what they’re doing is fair.

“I think the rules should for everybody. We didn’t start this up. I didn’t hurt nobody. Workman wasn’t hitting anybody in the first inning. They did.”

At first, Ortiz didn’t believe Price had intentionally hit him, since the Red Sox slugger recalled two conversations he had in the aftermath of Game 2 of the ALDS last October. Price was initially miffed that Ortiz stood and admired the second of his two homers and voiced his displeasure in a phone call.

But Price later called back and apologized and then repeated his apology publicly in Tampa following the day. Ortiz thought the issue was long resolved.

“That’s why I was [first] thinking, ‘Did he really do that on purpose?’ ” said Ortiz. “But like I say, I don’t care about we he did or does from this point on. What I care about is MLB looking at the case from the point where I didn’t start this up. Workman didn’t start this up. Price did.

“I thought the rule was for everybody. I thought the minute you figure that someone hit somebody on purpose, it says right there you’ve got to follow up [with discipline]. In this case, it seems like they didn’t.”

Ortiz also added this warning: “In my case, I’ve made my point clear. I’m not going to get hit again. Not by him. I’m not going to get hit again by him. He did it on purpose. He punked me and that was very disrespectful. I’m a grown-ass man and I’ve been around the league for a long time and I know how to take care of business of my own.”

Major League Baseball considering expansion, radical realignment

Don Ryan/Associated Press
1 Comment

Tracy Ringolsby of Baseball America wrote yesterday about a “growing consensus” within baseball that expansion and realignment are inevitable. The likely expansion cities: Portland and Montreal. The 32-team league would then undergo a radical realignment that would also involve reducing the season from 162 to 156 games while expanding the playoffs to 12 teams.

To be clear, Ringolsby’s actual reporting here is limited to that “growing consensus” about expansion, and the most likely cities involved, not regarding the specific realignment or game reduction plan. That I take to be speculative — he refers to it as “one proposal” — though it seems like reasonable and informed speculation. The general idea is that, if you expand, you have to realign, and if you realign you have to change the playoff structure lest too many teams in any one division become also-rans. That, combined with the near impossibility of changing the early-April-to-late-October footprint of the season and the desire of players to have less arduous travel schedules and some extra time off, leads to the shorter season.

The details of the plan:

  • The American and National Leagues would be disposed of, with MLB putting all 32 teams into four, eight-team, regionally-based divisions: East, North, Midwest, West. This is designed to (a) maintain regional and traditional rivalries while (b) cutting way back on cross-time zone travel. Both New York teams and Boston are in the “North,” both Chicago teams and St. Louis are in the “Midwest,” etc. Texas and Houston are in the “Midwest” too, but we’ll let the Texans get mad about that later.
  • The playoffs would feature a LOT of play-in games. Specifically, Ringolsby would have the four division winners go to the Division Series, where they would play the winner of four different Wild Card games, the participants in which would come from the eight non-division winners with the best records, regardless of which division they came from.
  • The schedule would go back to 156 games, giving every team an off-day every week. Between that and the more compact, almost all single-time-zone divisions, the travel schedules would be far less taxing, with shorter flights and more flights which could leave the day after a night game as opposed to directly after a night game, causing teams to arrive in the next city in the wee hours of the morning.

Thoughts:

  • Obviously this would piss off the purists.  The elimination of the traditional leagues, the shorter season, a (slightly) altered standard for records and milestones, and a doubling of one-and-done playoff series would make a lot of fans dizzy. On the one hand, I could argue that baseball has NEVER been as pure and unchanging as people like to pretend it is so maybe people shouldn’t get too bent out of shape over this, but it’s simply unavoidable that this would rattle a lot of baseball fans, and not just the ones hopelessly stuck in the past. Baseball should not be slavishly devoted to its history, but it needs to recognize that its history is a selling point and an important touchstone for many, many fans.
  • Ringolsby’s specific realignment idea is kind of fun, but will inevitably lead to some winners and losers. For example, many traditional rivalries or regional rivalries would be maintained — Chicago and St. Louis and Boston and New York would remain division rivals — but other, less-sexy but very real rivalries would be disposed of. The Mets, for example, would have no old NL rivals in their division. There will also be some teams which get screwed logistically. Here, all of Minnesota’s division rivals would be Eastern Time Zone teams, so all of its road games would be played in a different time zone. You could fix that somehow, but someone else would likely be inconvenienced. There isn’t a perfect way to do it. As such, implementation could be pretty messy, with some owners opposing it, possibly vehemently.
  • The playoff idea would make for a lot of drama with four play-in games, but I don’t think it’s a sustainable model. Yes, division winners would all be guaranteed a five-game playoff series, but having two-thirds of all of the playoff teams subjected to a random one-and-done game as opposed to the current four of ten would inevitably lead to calls for longer Wild Card series. And it would likely, over time, diminish the cachet of the Wild Card itself. Now most people think of Wild Card teams as having made the playoffs, With this plan, I suspect fewer people will think of it that way as opposed to some sort of weird, non-quite-the-playoffs limbo, thus hurting late season interest among fans of non-division winners.
  • A 156-game season wouldn’t be the end of the world. We had a 154-game season for a little over half a century total and a 162 game season for 56 seasons so far. Changing it might cause people to get grumpy about records and milestones, but other changes in the game, be it pitcher usage patterns or juiced baseballs or integration or night games or any number of other things have already changed the context in such a way that such standards were never as set-in-stone as people tend to believe. At the same time, extra off days might very well improve the caliber of play as players are more rested and therefore sharper.

In the end, it’s important to recognize that Ringolsby’s article is, in all likelihood, a trial balloon leaked by Major League Baseball, so don’t take any one aspect of it too seriously, even if we should all take the idea of some radical shift involving expansion and realignment in the not-too-distant future seriously.

Why? Money mostly. There are huge financial incentives for baseball to do this. Part of this involves the cost-savings which would result from better scheduling and less travel that Ringolsby mentions. A much greater incentive would come from the franchise fees the owners of the two new teams would pay the 30 current owners in order to be allowed into the MLB fraternity.  In the last round of expansion, the Diamondbacks and Devil Rays owners paid $150 million each for their teams. Given that franchises have gone up in value by a factor of ten twenty, it’s not inconceivable that new owners in Montreal and Portland would have to fork over well north of a billion dollars each to enter the league. That’s a check for $66 million written to each owner in exchange for simply voting “yes” at some meeting in Scottsdale on some fine December afternoon.

So, while there may be no uncertainly on the “how” of it all, the very fact of expansion and subsequent realignment seems inevitable. Now is a good time for us to start thinking about how the details of it all would work.