Source: Former Rangers bidder in on the Astros bid

Leave a comment

CORRECTION: While one of the parties to the bid was, indeed, unsuccessful in the first round of the bidding, I was mistaken in assuming that it had to be either Crane of Gilbert. The first round of bidding was actually a letter-bid submission round from last September, which included as many as six interested parties.  The Crane-Gilbert-Greenberg round, while referred to as the preliminary round in most media reports, was really the second round.  Upshot: the guy who lost out on the Rangers but is now in on the Astros doesn’t have to be either Gilbert or Crane. Could be any of six folks, actually.

7:45 A.M.: As was reported last night, Drayton McLane has signed a working letter of intent to enter into negotiations to sell the Astros. The group of prospective buyers is reported to be a mix of local and out-of-town investors.  This morning’s Houston Chronicle identifies part of that group: former United States Olympic Committee chief and former president of the International Baseball Federation, Harvey Schiller. The other is an unidentified New York investment banker.

As for other parties to the bid?  A source tells me that one of the is one of the bidders who didn’t make the second round of the Texas Rangers sale. As has been widely reported, Houston businessman Jim Crane was in that group. The same Crane who was reported to have “had a handshake deal” to buy the Astros in the past.  Given that Schiller and the investment banker are New Yorkers, it’s possible that Crane represents the “local interests” mentioned in last night’s report.  The other Rangers bidder was former agent Dennis Gilbert.

If I had to guess, I’d say that Crane is involved with the Schiller-investment banker people, simply due to the fact that he almost bought the team in the past. For now, however, the process is reported to be in the earliest stages, and McClane may decide that he doesn’t want to sell.

Manny Machado rips MLB Network talking heads over double standards

Getty Images
7 Comments

Manny Machado has had his fair share of controversies. There was the stuff about his lack of hustle last fall. He’s thrown bats and ran into and over guys and has argued with umpires and all of that stuff. Is he well-liked? Not really. Is he a dirty player? Some say so. But even if you don’t say so, he’s been involved in some dirty plays and he’s rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. We chronicled much of that last fall.

But he’s certainly not the only guy who has done that sort of thing before. Others have and, I think it’s fair to say, others have not caught as much flak for it as he has. There are reasons for that too, of course. Part of it is that a couple of Machado’s transgressions came in very high-profile situations like last year’s playoffs. Part of it is that he’s a big star who makes a lot of money and guys like that tend to get more attention and heat than others. Part of it is that a lot people simply don’t like Machado for whatever reason.

Machado talked at length about that last night when he took to Instagram to mock MLB Network analysts Eric Byrnes and Dan Plesac, who were going on about the Jake Marisnick plunking and his barreling into Jonathan Lucroy that led to it. Byrnes and Plesac were defending Marisnick. Machado noted that he would never have gotten that kind of defense had it been him doing the barreling instead of Marisnick.

Watch (warning: NSFW language):

 

I don’t think he’s wrong about that. Again, some of it would be justified in that Machado does have a reputation and when you have a reputation you don’t get as much benefit of the doubt. But it’s also the case that Machado was not getting much benefit of the doubt — including from these guys in particular — well before that reputation was established.

Over at the Big Lead, they found examples of Byrnes going after Machado way back in 2014. Machado’s transgressions have, from the beginning, been cast as a those of a dirty, hotheaded player who lacks class. Other players who have done exactly what Machado has done often get excused for showing “passion” and “competitiveness” or for “playing hard” instead of “playing dirty” even when there isn’t all that much actual difference between the acts in question.

Machado says it’s attributable, at least in part, to him being Latino. I think people can reasonably disagree on the question of whether Machado, personally, has been unfairly judged. But I think it’s pretty indisputable that, generally, Latino players get way, way, way less benefit of the doubt for “hard play” vs. “dirty play” and for being “hotheaded” as opposed to being “competitors” than non-Latinos get. Those stereotypes are well-established. Academic research has been conducted on that stuff, confirming such inherent bias on the part of white commentators. Some of Machado’s peers in the game have said the same thing, both in general, and about Machado’s treatment personally.

Which is to say, whether or not Machado has earned the treatment he gets, he has a point here.