And That Happened: Tuesday’s scores and highlights

64 Comments

Mets 8, Braves 3: A rookie named  Jacob deGrom facing one of the best pitchers in the NL in Julio Teheran? You figure it’d be no contest. And it wasn’t. Just not in the way you’d figure. deGrom struck out 11 in seven shutout innings and he [altogether now] helped his own cause by singling and coming around to score on a double. In other news, the Mets lead all of baseball in players whose surnames begin with lowercase letters.

White Sox 8, Red Sox 3: Sox win. Conor Gillaspie had three hits, including a tie-breaking three-run homer in the sixth. The last place Red Sox have lost seven of eight.

Tigers 14, Dodgers 5: Justin Verlander was tagged for five runs in the first, but then Hyun-Jin Ryu was tagged for seven in the next two and a third. And Detroit didn’t let up then, going on to abuse Jamey Wright, Chris Perez and Paul Maholm too, as they scored 14 unanswered runs. Well, I suppose they were answered by lots of cussing and heavy sighs from Don Mattingly, but that’s all.

Twins 2, Mariners 0: I’m picturing a 90s action movie trailer: “HUGHES!” [explosion sound effect] “FULD!” [explosion sound effect] “BY THEMSELVES, A LOT TO HANDLE.” [explosion sound effect] “TOGETHER, TOO MUCH TO HANDLE!” Phil Hughes shut ’em out on eight hits into the eighth while striking out eight. Sam Fuld was 3 for 3 with a homer.

Reds 4, Cubs 2; Reds 6, Cubs 5: The Reds were down 5-0 themselves in the nightcap of this twin bill, but Jay Bruce, who homered n the first game, doubled home the tying run in the eighth inning of the second and Billy Hamilton’s broken-bat RBI single in the ninth to walk the Reds off. After the game he was kinda jacked: “Let’s play three! I’m ready to go right now!” he said.

Indians 5, Yankees 3: Masahiro Tanaka is starting to look pretty mortal as the season wears on. He took his third loss in his past four starts while allowing five runs on ten hits to the Tribe. Michael Brantley homered, doubled twice and drove in three. His ridiculous season continues as he’s now at .328/.391/.529.

Marlins 2, Diamondbacks 1: Vidal Nuno made his debut for the Dbacks and it went really well for him: 7 IP, 3 H, 0 ER, 7K. The night didn’t go well for the Dbacks overall, however, as Marcell Ozuna hit a two-run homer in the ninth.

Rockies 2, Padres 1: Charlie Blackmon, about whom who we will one day say “that guy was an All-Star?” hit a two-run homer. Against the 2014 San Diego Padres, about whom we will one day say “that team had major leaguers on it?” that’s all you really need.

Athletics 6, Giants 1: Six wins in a row for the A’s, three losses in a row for Madison Bumgarner. Sonny Gray struck out eight and allowed one run over seven. The series now shifts across the Bay to San Francisco.

Editor’s Note: Hardball Talk’s partner FanDuel is hosting a one-day $30,000 Fantasy Baseball league for Wednesday night’s MLB games. It’s $25 to join and first prize is $5,000. Starts at 7:05pm ET on WednesdayHere’s the FanDuel link.

Cardinals 5, Pirates 4: Two straight walkoff homers for the Cards. On Monday it was Matt Adams. Last night it was Kolten Wong. And it wasn’t a cheapie: he hit the thing 420 feet.

Blue Jays 4, Angels 0: Oh Dickey, you’re so fine, you’re so fine you blow my mind HEY DICKEY! [clap clap, clap-clap] HEY DICKEY! [clap clap, clap-clap]. Seven shutout innings for R.A., 4 for 5 and three RBI for Jose Reyes.

What? You write a couple thousand of these recaps a year and see if you don’t reach for something once in a damn while.

Phillies 9, Brewers 7: Down 5-1 after the first inning, the Phillies broke out for five more in the second, one in the third and two in the fifth for their biggest offensive outburst in some time. Domonic Brown homered and had a two-run single.

Astros 8, Rangers 3: Chris Carter had two homers, leading off innings with both of them, and George Spring led off another inning with a bomb. That’s two in a row off Texas in this series and four against them overall. If they beat the Rangers today, Texas will fall into a last place tie with Houston.

Rays 4, Royals 3: Jeremy Hellickson made his season debut. It wasn’t a long one — he only lasted four and a third — but he only gave up one run. Kansas City left 11 dudes on base.

Orioles vs. Nationals: POSTPONED: Nobody feels any pain. Tonight as I stand inside the rain. Everybody knows, that Baby’s got new clothes. But lately I see her ribbons and her bows have fallen from her curls.

Rob Manfred responds to our report about recent labor negotiations

Getty Images
4 Comments

Two days ago NBC Sports reported comments Rob Manfred made to players union officials during midterm Collective Bargaining Agreement discussions this past summer. Specifically, sources told NBC Sports that Manfred took an aggressive posture, telling the union that there is “not going to be a deal where we pay you in economics to get labor peace” and “maybe Marvin Miller’s financial system doesn’t work anymore.” Those comments and our report led many to believe that Manfred and baseball’s owners intend to take a hard line with the union between now and when the current CBA expires in December 2021.

Yesterday, at the conclusion of the Owners Meetings, Manfred was asked about our report. Part of his comments were reported in the New York Post last night, but NBC Sports has obtained a full transcript of his entire response:

“One of the things that I never do is talk about what is said in a bargaining room because my experience has been that it usually results in unproductive mischaracterization of the comment. There were four people in that room the day of that conversation: me, [Deputy Commissioner] Dan Halem, Tony Clark and [MLBPA chief negotiator] Bruce Meyer. I think it’s pretty safe to assume that it was not Dan Halem and not me that was the source of that story.

“The comments, the way the conversation actually went, as opposed to the way that it was spun: we invited the MLBPA to come forward with suggestions about midterm modifications that might address some of their concerns. In the meeting, Mr. Meyer suggested a series of changes that would turn the Basic Agreement back 50 years. I mean, essentially give back to the union everything we’ve achieved over the last few decades. I asked, in response to his suggestion, what was in that deal for the clubs? He said, ‘Labor peace.’ The way the conversation actually went is I said to him, ‘Labor peace is a mutual benefit. It’s not something that you trade economics against. It is a mutual benefit it keeps the players working and getting paid and it keeps our business forward.’ That’s how the conversation actually went.”

There’s a lot to unpack here. So let’s unpack.

First off, NBC Sports has no comment of our own about Manfred’s speculation about the sources of our story, as we do not talk about or reveal our confidential sources. As for his comment about “the way it was spun,” we stand by our report, thanks.

As for the substance, Manfred’s comment that the union “suggested a series of changes” that “would turn the Basic Agreement back 50 years” is not consistent with what we were told by our sources. Our sources told us that the union, rather than make any specific proposals, simply laid out its version of where things stand at present between owners and the players financially speaking. Revenue, salaries, free agent signings and things of that nature, while noting their dissatisfaction about that state of affairs. Of course, given that Manfred was actually at the meeting and, given that the MLBPA has declined comment on all of this we’ll leave that go.

But even if Manfred is right and the union made a bunch of proposals, is it really plausible that they were, essentially, retrograde proposals via which the union would seek to “turn back the Basic Agreement 50 years?”

In 1969 the players had no free agency. No arbitration. They were subject to the reserve clause which rendered them utterly powerless in every conceivable way. Going back 50 years — or even 30 years, which was when owners openly colluded against free agents and the minimum salary was still five figures — is surely not a thing the union wants to do. Yes, I presume the union would probably like to see a system more akin to that which existed in the relatively recent past, when free agency worked better for them and they received a higher percentage of league revenues, but Manfred’s characterization of the union’s stance, assuming it was not uncharacteristic hyperbole on his part, is not super plausible.

In contrast, I’ll note that Manfred did not comment on the part of our story where we reported that he said “maybe Marvin Miller’s financial system doesn’t work anymore.” We stand by our report that he did, in fact, say that. And we note that if someone was desirous of wanting a baseball economic system that did not have Marvin Miller’s fingerprints all over it, that system would, by definition, look very much like that which existed 50 years ago. Which leads me to wonder if Manfred is merely projecting when it comes to his characterization of the union’s position.

More important than all of that, though, is the final bit he had to say last night. A bit that, actually, is pretty consistent with our reporting on Wednesday.

Again, from Manfred, offering his own account of what he said to Clark and Meyer in negotiations this past summer:

I asked, in response to his suggestion, what was in that deal for the clubs? He said, ‘Labor peace.’ The way the conversation actually went is I said to him, ‘Labor peace is a mutual benefit. It’s not something that you trade economics against. It is a mutual benefit it keeps the players working and getting paid and it keeps our business forward.’

Even if you assume that, and not the way we reported it on Wednesday, was the exact verbiage, I’m not sure how it makes any difference. At bottom, it’s the exact same position: MLB is communicating that it is unwilling to make economic concessions in the face of a threat of a work stoppage. It’s one party to a negotiation telling the other party to the negotiation that even if it exercises the most drastic power it has at its disposal, it will not back down. Or, alternatively, it’s a demand that the one side disarm itself of its most potent weapon before the other side agrees to anything of substance.

That’s certainly something management can do, but it’s not something that it can do and still portray itself as seeking an amicable resolution to what appears will be a contentious negotiation. That’s, by definition, a hardline position.

Given that the general upshot of our report on Wednesday was that MLB was taking a hardline position in early negotiations, I don’t think anything Manfred had to say last night stands as a rebuttal.