Craig Calcaterra

Alex Rodriguez
Getty Images

ESPN New York writers speculate that A-Rod took PEDs last year


Over at ESPN New York Wallace Matthews and Andrew Marchand talk about Alex Rodriguez‘s rebound 2015 and the fact that he was not involved in any controversies or snafus in the past year. And, of course, rather than merely note it and note how that is different than the past, they decide to be cynical and skeptical about it and ask whether or not Alex Rodriguez is “truly a changed man.”

Not just from a P.R. perspective, mind you. They seem to each suspect, on some level, that A-Rod is still using performance enhancing drugs. Here’s Marchand:

The other thing that can’t be ruled out is how the heck did he do it last year? I mean, two hip surgeries, his 40th birthday and basically two years of inactivity and A-Rod was great for three-quarters of the season. My mom taught me a long time ago, if it is too good to be true, it usually is. That said, maybe A-Rod was doing things on the up and up — but at this point, it would be naive not to at least wonder if he still had some extra help.

Here’s Matthews:

Unfortunately, baseball and all professional sports have made this dirty bed for themselves and it’s not only naive, but irresponsible for us as journalists not to suspect hanky-panky when an athlete of an advanced age does something it seems unlikely he would be able to do. I’ll give Alex the benefit of the doubt on 2015, but would be very surprised if he were able to remain healthy all season and produce like that again in 2016.

A-Rod has a drug history, obviously, and if he were to be caught using again it wouldn’t be the most shocking thing ever. But at the same time this sort of exercise is pretty distasteful. And it is undeniably ignorant and cynical.

Who cares if A-Rod is “truly a changed man?” Even if we do care, who can really know? As I said yesterday, we never can really know these guys so personally so as to say whether they truly are bad dudes or good dudes. We can only see what they do, we only see very little of what they do and we can only talk intelligently about what is public and what is known. If A-Rod is caught with a U-Haul full of HGH next week, fire away. Unless or until that happens, what are we really doing here other than laying the groundwork for a big “I TOLD YOU SO!” later? Or rehashing some old stories about the guy in order to cast some new aspersions? “Put up or shut up” is a cliche, but it’s a pretty damn useful one, especially when it comes to a person with whom the press has a decidedly arm’s-length relationship and about whose life they really don’t and can’t know.

More broadly, was A-Rod Satan incarnate as a result of what we knew he was doing before? No. Are other players who are not publicly revealed to have been involved in controversy Archangels? Certainly not all of them. We think we know these guys because they play sports on our TVs a couple hours a night and talk to the press for five minutes, but we don’t. We don’t know these guys and certainly don’t know everything about them. The same can be said of any and all public persons, from Alex Rodriguez to Pope Francis to Bill Cosby to everyone in between. In almost no cases is one’s public-facing persona who they “truly” are.

But still we judge. Or at least the Matthews and Marchands of the world do. It’s a negative feedback loop fueled by heavy helpings of ignorance, predispositions and myopia. It’s a process fueled by the belief that a person’s athletic exploits say something critical and important about their character. It’s a process fueled by the belief that an athlete’s good deeds or transgressions are bellwethers of their character, which is not at all the case unless those good deeds are not offset by equal transgressions or unless those transgressions are truly vile.

Ultimately, of course, this process is fueled by a belief that if a columnist flaps their lips about these sorts of things with respect to a person who is famous enough, readers will flock to it.

At least they’re right about that last part. Which is why, even though things would be much better if we simply watched sports and commented on what happens and opined on what about these athletes is both relevant and known, there will always be those who try to dig deeper. Who play armchair psychiatrist/psychic an in effort to validate their predispositions or to cast aspersions on those they simply dislike.

MLB unveils new spring training caps and jerseys and they’re pretty freakin’ sweet

Screen Shot 2016-01-28 at 1.42.38 PM

There was a time when spring training jerseys seemed like an afterthought. Glorified batting practice jerseys in many cases made to look all the worse by comparison when some teams wore them while others, at least for home games, wore their full regular-season style jerseys.

In the past few years, however, MLB and its merchandising partners have made a pretty big effort to improve the design of these things, both in terms of materials and in terms of aesthetics. Of course a big reason for this is to make it so that fans would want to buy their own versions and/or replicas of the spring training togs, but this is America, dang it, and that’s just what we do. They’ve done it to pretty uneven degrees over the years, truth-be-told. For every decent spring training design there have been some bad ones and regular season uniforms are still way better.

This year, however, the designs have taken a great stride forward. Really, most of them look pretty darn sharp. I’m not a fan of patches on the sides of caps as I think it creates an unbalanced effect, but the little highway sign-style shield is nice looking. Some of the individual team designs, particularly the White Sox, are sharper than sharp.

Go here for a slide show of all of the spring jerseys. Or, so see them all cycle through, check out these tweeted pics:


A reminder that baseball’s commissioner works for the owners

Rob Manfred
Associated Press

Over the years I have noted, over and over again, that the position of Commissioner of Baseball is not what most people grew up thinking it is. The Commissioner is not an impartial or benevolent ruler. He does not preside over all of baseball seeking to maximize well being for all stakeholders.

Rather, the Commissioner is best thought of as the Chairman of the Board for the owners’ committee and his job, above all else, is to maximize their good fortune. Oh, sure, to do that he has to make sure the players don’t strike and the fans don’t leave and to that end there is an understandable balancing of interests involved. But at the end of the day, he gets fired if the owners are not happy and the thing that makes the owners unhappy above all else is not making the amount of money they think they should be making. From that, all else flows.

Even the people who understand that in theory tend to forget that as time goes on. They complain about Major League Baseball pursuing a policy — like, say, things related to television — that does not benefit fans as much as it enriches owners and act as if they have been misrepresented by the person they mistakenly think is their advocate and leader. For this reason I like to point out examples of the Commissioner acting within his true role whenever possible. When he’s not shaking hands wth baseball luminaries at photo ops or when he’s not sitting behind the bunting at the World Series, acting as First Fan as opposed to the duly-elected representative of baseball owners.

Like today, in this excellent article from Tyler Kepner of the New York Times. It’s about opt-outs in free agent contracts. If you aren’t totally up on opt-outs it’s an excellent article about the issue in and of itself. But it also provides an excellent example of Commissioner Rob Manfred acting as the head of the owners’ committee as opposed to being some overall leader of the greater baseball community. Check this out:

In a telephone interview, Commissioner Rob Manfred credited agents for skillfully using leverage but emphasized the “disproportionately pro-player” aspect of the clause.

“The only scenario where you can say, with certainty, that the player is not going to opt out is if he’s had a career-ending injury or he has performed at a level that is so far beneath the value of those out-years that nobody’s going to duplicate it,” Manfred said. “That’s the only time the player is going to stay in that contract. Otherwise, you’ve lost control of the player.”

Manfred added: “If the player’s been good, the club’s going to want to keep him. So you end up either losing him or paying him even more than you originally paid him. Neither of those are good outcomes.”

Well, sure they’re good outcomes. They’re good for the player, obviously. They’re good for fans of the team who, by definition, got good performance from the player in the short time he was there. And, in the same dang article, you learn that in some cases opt-outs are good for the team and team management itself. Here’s Sandy Alderson talking about the value of the opt-out given to Yoenis Cespedes:

“I thought it would be highly unrealistic that we would get a shortened term without some sort of opt-out clause,” General Manager Sandy Alderson said. “And the value of the opt-out clause, from our standpoint, was a shorter term — which happened to be important to us. The only way the shorter term was going to make sense for the player was with the opt-out.”

So, there is player value to the opt-out. There is fan value in many cases. And, as Alderson notes, there is team value in terms of their ability to get a player they want and to field a competitive squad.

The only unequivocal downside of the opt-out is to the owners who have to pay more for a player. And, of course, that’s the part with which Manfred is primarily concerned, as “paying more for players” is something baseball owners have been against for over 150 years. It should be noted that Manfred is not on record as far as I know talking about how it’s a bad outcome for a player to be subject to a team option which ends up resulting in him being paid less than his market value if he performs well and puts him out of a job if he performs poorly.

Anyway, just a reminder of what the Commissioner of baseball’s job really is and whose interest with which he is primarily concerned.