Elsa/Getty Images

Curt Schilling thinks Adam Jones is still lying about racist incident in Boston

49 Comments

Yesterday, Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports published a Q&A with Orioles outfielder Adam Jones about race issues in baseball and in America at large. Jones was the victim of a racist incident during a game against the Red Sox at Fenway Park earlier this month. One fan threw peanuts at him while another yelled racist epithets at him.

The Red Sox publicly apologized to Jones and made clear strides to remedy the situation, while Major League Baseball issued a statement expressing zero tolerance for that kind of behavior from fans. Former major leaguer Curt Schilling, now a conservative talk radio hero, came out and accused Jones of making the whole thing up.

Schilling isn’t backing down. After Jones mentioned Schilling in his Q&A with Passan, Schilling responded to WEEI.com in a text message, continuing to accuse Jones of pushing an agenda.

If he wants to maintain the lie he made here, that’s fine. No one denies racism exists, but when people like him lie about an incident and others just take him at his word, it perpetuates a mythical level of racism. And for some reason, it appears blacks believe only blacks can talk about racism and only whites can be racists. I promise you if some scumbag yelled the N-word at Adam Jones in Fenway, it would have been on Twitter, Facebook and every other social media site asap, like every other ‘incident.’ Not to mention the liberal Boston media would have broken its neck to identify the racist. But just taking him at his word means there are a bunch of white cowards and racists living here, because no one stood up to the guy. Adam has an agenda and one needs to only look at his past commentary on race and racism to see it. But see, when you question fake hate crimes in this day and age it somehow makes you a racist. If you use this use every word or none at all.

Of course, the Red Sox did ban a fan who used a racist slur at Fenway Park, just not the one who yelled it at Jones. And Jones’ story was backed up by numerous other players who said they experienced similar treatment in Boston, including CC Sabathia, David Price, Jackie Bradley, Jr., Barry Bonds, and Mark McLemore.

As I mentioned yesterday, people in positions of systemic power (e.g. white men) need to learn to listen and empathize when people without that systemic power speak up. Orioles manager Buck Showalter is a great example. Following the incident at Fenway, Showalter said, “I can’t sit here and profess how Adam feels. Like I’ve said before, I’ve never been black, so I’m not going to sit here and try to act like I know. But I can tell you how it makes me feel.” Schilling, on the other hand, has never been a black man and has never even played the outfield at Fenway, yet he’s comfortable erasing Jones’ experience and making a conclusion that goes against the testimonies of numerous other players who backed Jones up.

Must-Click Link: Do the players even care about money anymore?

Getty Images
21 Comments

Yesterday I wrote about how the union has come to find itself in the extraordinarily weak position it’s in. The upshot: their leadership and their membership, happily wealthy by virtue of gains realized in the 1970s-1990s, has chosen to focus on small, day-to-day, quality of life issues rather than big-picture financial issues. As a result, ownership has cleaned their clock in the past few Collective Bargaining Agreements. If the union is to ever get back the considerable amount of ground it has lost over the past 15 years, it’ll require a ton of hard work and perhaps drastic measures.

A few hours later, Yahoo’s Jeff Passan dropped an absolute must-read that expands on that topic. Through weeks of interviews with league officials, agents and players, he explains why the free agent market is as bad as it is for players right now and why so many of them and so many fans seem not to understand just how bad a spot the players are in, business wise.

Passan keys on the media’s credulousness regarding teams’ stated rationales for not spending in free agency. About how, with even a little bit of scrutiny, the “[Team] wants to get below the luxury tax” argument makes no sense. About how the claim that this is a weak free agent class, however true that may be, does not explain why so few players are being signed.  About how so few teams seem interested in actually competing and how fans, somehow, seem totally OK with it.

Passan makes a compelling argument, backed by multiple sources, that, even if there is a lot of money flowing around, the fundamental financial model of the game is broken. The young players are the most valuable but are paid pennies while players with 6-10 years service time are the least valuable yet are the ones, theoretically anyway, positioned to make the most money. The owners have figured it out. The union has dropped the ball as it has worried about, well, whatever the heck it is worried about. The killer passage on all of this is damning in this regard:

During the negotiations leading to the 2016 basic agreement that governs baseball, officials at MLB left bargaining stupefied almost on a daily basis. Something had changed at the MLBPA, and the league couldn’t help but beam at its good fortune: The core principle that for decades guided the union no longer seemed a priority.

“It was like they didn’t care about money anymore,” one league official said.

Personally, I don’t believe that they don’t care about money anymore. I think the union has simply dropped the ball on educating its membership about the business structure of the game and the stakes involved with any given rule in the CBA. I think that they either so not understand the financial implications of that to which they have agreed or are indifferent to them because they do not understand their scope and long term impact.

It’s a union’s job to educate its membership about the big issues that may escape any one member’s notice — like the long term effects of a decision about the luxury tax or amateur and international salary caps — and convince them that it’s worth fighting for. Does the MLBPA do that? Does it even try? If it hasn’t tried for the past couple of cycles and it suddenly starts to now, will there be a player civil war, with some not caring to jeopardize their short term well-being for the long term gain of the players who follow them?

If you care at all about the business and financial aspects of the game, Passan’s article is essential.