Torii Hunter's Statement

Leave a comment

Torii Hunter has released a statement on his website. I won’t reproduce the whole thing here — it’s long and you should read it in its entirety in its context — but this is the part that I consider to be most significant:

We all come from different places and backgrounds. Coming from Pine
Bluff, Ark., my hometown, is no different than being a kid from San
Pedro de Macoris in the Dominican Republic. We all share the common
bond of a love of baseball, and it pulls us together on the field and
in the clubhouse.

What troubles me most was the word “impostors” appearing in
reference to Latin American players not being black players. It was the
wrong word choice, and it definitely doesn’t accurately reflect how I
feel and who I am.

What I meant was they’re not black players; they’re Latin American
players. There is a difference culturally. But on the field, we’re all
brothers, no matter where we come from, and that’s something I’ve
always taken pride in: treating everybody the same, whether he’s a
superstar or a young kid breaking into the game. Where he was born and
raised makes no difference.

Despite the conversations about racial identity that have sprung up in the comments, the original reason I posted this morning was not to open that can of worms. Rather, it was because I thought Hunter’s use of the term “impostors” and “imitator” was completely out of line. I don’t think anyone in baseball is trying to pass themselves as anything other than a ballplayer, and suggesting as much is an insult to Latin American players who didn’t get where they are by pretending to be anything other than what they are. Well, and sometimes pretending to be younger versions of themselves, but that’s another conversation.

Anyway, unless the USA Today reporter seriously misquoted Hunter, I view the above statement as more of a retreat than a clarification — and the passive voice regarding the word impostor “appearing” in his statement is a bit telling — but that’s fine. We all say dumb things sometimes, and we should all be allowed to get a mulligan. Hunter’s a good guy and he deserves a mulligan too.

Still, I have to note that something is absent from Hunter’s statement, and that’s anything relating to the other part of his comments in USA Today with which I had a problem: his theory — he actually said “we have a theory,” apparently referring to U.S.-born blacks — that Major League Baseball has an active agenda to overlook U.S. born blacks in favor of foreign born players. Unless Hunter (or anyone else) has some evidence for such an agenda on the part of Major League Baseball, I think it’s a pretty irresponsible charge. Frankly, I’m rather surprised Hunter didn’t address it here.

At any rate, that appears to be that. Unless someone decides it isn’t that, at which point I’ll write something else that will rile everyone up again.

The Padres owners try to explain why they aren’t spending money

Getty Images
5 Comments

There was an interesting article in the San Diego Union-Tribune over the weekend about the Padres, their owners and their finances.

The article purports to be a rare look into the finances of a big league club. And yes, the owners opened their books, to a degree, to the writer of the story, talked about the team’s financial position, its debt and its approach to team payroll, past, present and future. The upshot: the team has had lots of debt, has had to do a lot of work to get out of that situation and now, with some restructuring out of the way, the club looks forward to spending more on players. Eventually. Like, maybe in 2020 or 2021.

On the one hand, yes, it’s actually got some good information in there! Some details about team finances you don’t often see. Which is totally cool as far as that goes. The problem is that the article doesn’t go nearly as far as it may seem and, in the end, is just a far more elaborate than usual excuse from a team about its failure to spend money.

The tell here comes from what is not mentioned as opposed to what is. For example, while it talks about how much is being spent on various things — baseball salaries, operating, marketing, etc. — nowhere does it talk about the owners’ own take. Rather, it leaves you with the impression that the owners haven’t seen a dime from the team in the several years that they’ve owned it. Color me extraordinarily skeptical about that. As we’ve seen with other clubs — most notably the Marlins, but most do it — broad categories such as “baseball operations” or “non baseball operations” often include substantial payments to owners in less-than-obvious line items. Payments to LLCs and partnerships for “consulting” or “management fees” or what have you. Do the Padres have similar expenditures? We can’t tell from this article, but it’s telling to me that they have spent about as much on front office/miscellaneous baseball ops stuff as player salaries over the past several years. A lot of that has been at building a strong minor league development system, but I’m guessing not all.

Similarly, there is an awfully large portion of the article aimed at telling the tale of the clubs’ massive debt and its restructuring. Yes, debt service can be a killer for liquidity, but it doesn’t really talk too much about the debt for its own sake. Such as the fact that (a) the current owners knew full-well of the debt they were inheriting from the previous owner, John Moores, when they bought the team; and (b) that by assuming the debt, their purchase price for the team was lowered, as it always will be in transactions that involve a lot of debt-assumption. The current owners have had the team since 2012. I don’t recall them telling the public then that there would be a near decade’s worth of swimming against the current of debt before they started paying for players. That’s never been in the season ticket brochure.

It’s also worth noting that, for as much as the debt restructuring is talked up in the story, it is saving the Padres only $8 million a year. They’ve been at least $60 million below the luxury tax threshold for several years now. It’s more than the club’s debt keeping them from spending money. It’s largely been a choice.

Again, none of which is to say that the article is not interesting in its own right. It certainly is. There is certainly more information here than one typically sees in an article about a team’s finances. But it is just partial information. Moreover, it seems to be aimed at justifying another year or two of non-contention to fans without satisfactorily explaining all of the many years of non-contention which preceded it. The Padres famously went all-in and spent some money on players in 2015. Why did that make sense then if this debt problem has been there all along? Why did they give Eric Hosmer over $100 million last year? The article wants to portray ownership as sober and responsible and prudent and use that to explain why the Padres have stunk on ice for a good long time, but it is not very convincing in communicating some consistent, rational thread from ownership.

That all of this comes at a time when clubs are being criticized for not spending money is no accident, I suspect. As such, I am choosing to read the piece for some interesting information it conveys while understanding that it has a pretty significant P.R. component to it as well.