Are the Red Sox more respectful of Roger Clemens’ legacy than Wade Boggs’?

42 Comments

I ask that based on this from Nick Cafardo’s Sunday column:

A few readers pointed this out: the Red Sox wouldn’t give No. 21 to Rick Porcello out of respect to Roger Clemens, who is not in the Hall of Fame yet because of steroid allegations. But No. 26 is given to anyone, and Wade Boggs is in the Hall of Fame wearing a Red Sox cap..

I can’t find an actual news story which says “the Red Sox wouldn’t give” Porcello number 21. Or, for that matter, one which says what number he will actually wear. He did not have a jersey-wearing moment at his introductory press conference so we didn’t see. If they announced it otherwise, I missed it.

But even if he’s not wearing 21, it’s possible that that was his choice, not some honor given to Clemens. Porcello only wore 21 for a couple of seasons in Detroit, switching to it only after he let Torii Hunter wear the 48 that he had worn the previous few seasons. It’s not like 21 has some deep meaning to Porcello. Maybe he doesn’t want it.

If, however, the Red Sox have retired Clemens’ number on a defacto basis — no one has worn it for them since Clemens did in 1996 — it is at least mildly eyebrow-raising. As Cafardo notes, Boggs’ number 26 has been worn by many people, most recently Brock Holt. Last year Boggs himself publicly beefed about it not being retired. As I noted in the post at the time, there are maybe some reasons for that, however provincial they are, but it still is pretty lame that the Sox have not retired it.

An Astros executive asked scouts to use cameras, binoculars to steal signs in 2017

Getty Images
Leave a comment

The Athletic reports that an Astros executive asked scouts to spy on opponents’ dugouts in August of 2017, suggesting in an email that they use cameras or binoculars to do so.

The email, ESPN’s Jeff Passan reports, came from Kevin Goldstein, who is currently a special assistant for player personnel but who at the time was the director of pro scouting. In it he wrote:

“One thing in specific we are looking for is picking up signs coming out of the dugout. What we are looking for is how much we can see, how we would log things, if we need cameras/binoculars, etc. So go to game, see what you can (or can’t) do and report back your findings.”

The email came during the same month that the Red Sox were found to have illegally used an Apple Watch to steal signs from the Yankees. The Red Sox were fined as a result, and it led to a clarification from Major League Baseball that sign stealing via electronic or technological means was prohibited. Early in 2019 Major League Baseball further emphasized this rule and stated that teams would receive heavy penalties, including loss of draft picks and/or bonus pool money if they were found to be in violation.

It’s an interesting question whether Goldstein’s request to scouts would fall under the same category as the Apple Watch stuff or other technology-based sign-stealing schemes. On the one hand, the email certainly asked scouts to use cameras and binoculars to get a look at opposing signs. On the other hand, it does not appear that it was part of a sign-relaying scheme or that it was to be used in real time. Rather, it seems aimed at information gathering for later use. The Athletic suggests that using eyes or binoculars would be considered acceptable in 2017 but that cameras would not be. The Athletic spoke to scouts and other front office people who all think that asking scouts to use a camera would “be over the line” or would constitute “cheating.”

Of course, given how vague, until very recently Major League Baseball’s rules have been about this — it’s long been governed by the so-called “unwritten rules” and convention, only recently becoming a matter of official sanction — it’s not at all clear how the league might consider it. It’s certainly part and parcel of an overarching sign-stealing culture in baseball which we are learning has moved far, far past players simply looking on from second base to try to steal signs, which has always been considered a simple matter of gamesmanship. Now, it appears, it is organizationally-driven, with baseball operations, scouting and audio-visual people being involved. The view on all of this has changed given how sophisticated and wide-ranging an operation modern sign-stealing appears to be. Major League Baseball was particularly concerned, at the time the Red Sox were punished for the Apple Watch stuff, that it involved management and front office personnel.

Regardless of how that all fits together, Goldstein’s email generated considerable angst among Astros scouts, many of whom, The Athletic and ESPN report, commented in real time via email and the Astros scout’s Slack channel, that they considered it to be an unreasonable request that would risk their reputations as scouts. Some voiced concern to management. Today that email has new life, emerging as it does in the wake of last week’s revelations about the Astros’ sign-stealing schemes.

This is quickly becoming the biggest story of the offseason.