News flash: Mike Lupica takes cheapshots at A-Rod

Leave a comment

Mike Lupica’s latest column about A-Rod and the Dr. Galea investigation stands as proof that he’s never been involved in a federal investigation:

Come on, there are more things fishy about all this than the old Fulton Fish Market. If the whole thing is so easily explained, if Rodriguez is “at ease” with the whole situation as he told the media in Florida the other day, how come he hasn’t cleared some of this up already, no matter how lawyered up he is.

Sometimes people bring lawyers with them when they talk to the feds
because they want to make sure they don’t incriminate themselves. But
if that’s the case with A-Rod, you’re probably thinking:

Incriminate himself about what?

I’m not the most suspicious person in the world. I still trust my government. I pay my taxes. I don’t think I’m under surveillance. I haven’t joined any militias this week or anything. But I can tell you one thing: if federal agents asked me to come in and talk to them, especially about a drug case, I’d have a lawyer with me no matter how tenuous and benign my connection to the matter.

Maybe the agents on the Galea case are nice young men, but federal drug prosecutions have been known to go off the rails in search of secondary ant tertiary targets pretty quickly. Can’t get the main guy? Get one of his lieutenants. Can’t get a lieutenant? Go after a major user. Can’t make a case against a user? Well, at least we can sift through the records and build a tax case against someone based on what we learned in interviews. No tax case? Well, perhaps we can just throw together false statement case against one of the many witnesses.  Yeah, let’s make it against the high profile dude so it doesn’t look like we’re picking on average citizens.

Against that backdrop — a backdrop that Lupica, having not just fallen off the turnip truck is no doubt aware of — his comments about A-Rod “lawyering up” are nothing more than cynical sensationalism in the service of cheap and easy potshots against a favorite target.

Or as Lupica calls it: Monday.

Red Sox owner: “spending money helps”

Getty Images
4 Comments

The other day Rob Manfred said, as he and other owners have said often in the past, that there is no correlation between payroll and winning. He said that defensively, in response to criticism of the slow free agent market of the past two offseasons.

As we have noted in the past, Manfred is not being honest about that. While, yes, in any given year there can be wild variation between payroll and win total — the Giants stunk last year, the A’s won 97 games — common sense dictates otherwise. What’s more, a recent study has shown that there is a pretty strong correlation between winning and payroll over time. Yes, you can fluke into a big season with a low payroll — Deadspin compared it to a cold snap occurring during a time of climate change — but if you want that “sustained success” teams claim they want, the best way to ensure it is to spend more money over time.

If you know anything about baseball labor history, though, you know well that the Commissioner and the owners will continue to mischaracterize the dynamics of the business as it suits them. Mostly because — present lefty sportswriters notwithstanding — very few people push back on their narratives. Fans tend to parrot ownership’s line on this stuff and, more often than not, baseball media acts as stenographer for ownership as opposed to critic. That gives owners a far greater ability to shape the narrative about all of this than most institutions.

Which makes this all the more awkward. From David Schoenfield of ESPN:

In apparent contradiction to his own commissioner, Boston Red Sox owner John Henry said Monday that, while there is not a perfect correlation between a bigger payroll and winning, “spending more money helps.”

Which is right. The correlation is not perfect — teams can spend a lot of money on a bad team if given the chance and a low payroll team like the Rays can bullpen their way to 90 wins — but you’re way more likely to win year-in, year-out if you’re spending than if you go cheap all the time and hope for a miracle season.

Which is not to say that Henry is some labor activist owner. He and his fellow front office officials have a long history of backing the league office on just about everything that matters and will no doubt do so with labor matters in the runup to the next CBA negotiation. The owners tend not to have a solidarity problem.

But Henry does seem to draw the line at peddling baloney, which is a shockingly necessary thing when the league and the union’s relationship turns acrimonious.