Good story at SI by Chris Ballard about a dude who I bet most casual fans would guess quit playing a couple of years ago. Jason Giambi: former MVP, former $23 million a year player, former steroids poster boy.
For the past three years he’s been a pinch hitter in Colorado. He had a nice blip of a season in 2011, but it’s winding down now. And Giambi, who has long been on-the-record contrite about his and the game’s notorious steroids years, is waxing reflective:
And yet here he is. Now, at 41, Giambi has an 11-month-old daughter named London Shay. When I asked what he’d like people to say about her father when she’s 10 years old, he stopped for a moment. “Wow … I would love for them to say, ‘One time in his career, he made a mistake but he worked really hard and got his honor back and he was honest,'” Giambi said. “I think that’s the most important [thing]. I’ve been on top of the world in this game, I’ve won the most valuable player, and I’ve been in the gutter in this game. But I’m still here.”
Not many former superstars continue on as role players after their elite skills have faded into average ones. Giambi says it’s about simply loving the game. Part of me wonders if there isn’t some aspect of penance to it, even if it’s a subconscious thing. Like Giambi feels as though he owes the game yeoman’s work after his tainted time at the top.
Either way, Giambi leaving the game, as it seems he’s poised to, sort of feels like the end of an era.
Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic reports that Major League Baseball has rejected the MLBPA’s proposal for a 114-game season and said it would not send a counter offer. The league said it has started talks with owners “about playing a shorter season without fans, and that it is ready to discuss additional ideas with the union.”
This should be understood as a game of chicken.
The background here is that the the owners are pretty much locked into the idea of paying players a prorated share of their regular salaries based on number of games played. The players, meanwhile, are pretty much locked in to the idea that the owners can set the length of the season that is played. Each side is trying to leverage their power in this regard.
The players proposed a probably unworkable number of games — 114 — as a means of setting the bidding high on a schedule that will work out well for them financially. Say, a settled agreement at about 80 games or so. The owners were rumored to be considering a counteroffer of a low number of games — say, 50 — as a means of still getting a significant pay cut from the players even if they’re being paid prorata. What Rosenthal is now reporting is that they won’t even counter with that.
Which is to say that the owners are trying to get the players to come off of their prorated salary rights under the threat of a very short schedule that would end up paying them very little. They won’t formally offer that short schedule, however, likely because (a) they believe that the threat of uncertain action is more formidable; and (b) they don’t want to be in the position of publicly demanding fewer baseball games, which doesn’t look very good to fans. They’d rather be in the position of saying “welp, the players wouldn’t talk to us about money so we have no choice, they forced us into 50 games.”
In other news, the NBA seems very close to getting its season resumed.