Ron Jenkins/Getty Images

And That Happened: Monday’s Scores and Highlights

17 Comments

Here are the scores. Here are the highlights:

Yankees 10, Rangers 5: This one was a barnburner, featuring eight home runs combined from both teams. Gleyber Torres hit two, both off of Bartolo Colon, who is more than twice his age. Torres is the second-youngest Yankee to have a multi-homer game. Aaron Judge, Neil Walker, and Aaron Hicks also contributed dingers for the Yankees. Joey Gallo, Rougned Odor, and Ronald Guzman went deep for the Rangers. Masahiro Tanaka‘s ERA goes up to 4.95 after serving up four runs in five innings. Despite that, the Yankees improve to 31-13, good for the best record in baseball.

Phillies 3, Braves 0: Nick Pivetta was brilliant, spinning seven shutout frames with seven strikeouts, limiting the Braves to four hits and a walk. Seranthony Dominguez pitched an impressive eighth and Hector Neris closed it out 1-2-3 in the ninth. Catcher Jorge Alfaro was the star of this game, throwing out Johan Camargo attempting to steal and making an absolute laser throw to first base for the final out of the game. He should’ve also had a caught-stealing on Freddie Freeman, but shortstop Scott Kingery didn’t handle the ball well. The Phillies got homers from Nick Williams and Aaron Altherr. Odubel Herrera, by the way, somehow got a hit on this pitch:

Mets 2, Marlins 0: Jason Vargas finally put together a good start for the Mets, tossing five scoreless frames. The Marlins only scraped out a hit and two walks while striking out seven times against him. The Mets, who started this month off with a six-game losing streak, have now won four in a row. The Marlins have lost four in a row; Monday’s was on the heels of Sunday’s absolute mess of a loss.

Nationals 10, Padres 2: The Nationals powered out four home runs, including Juan Soto’s first major league dinger. Mark Reynolds went deep twice and Bryce Harper went deep for his 14th homer of the year. Gio Gonzalez limited the Padres to a pair of runs on two hits and three walks with five strikeouts.

Brewers 4, Diamondbacks 2: The Brewers were powered by the long ball on Monday. Travis Shaw drilled a two-run shot while Domingo Santana and Lorenzo Cain hit solo shots. All three homers came against Zack Greinke, who struck out nine over six innings otherwise. Chase Anderson outdueled him, limiting the D-Backs to a pair of runs on three hits and three walks with three strikeouts.

Orioles 3, White Sox 2: Manny Machado hit his 15th homer of the season, moving into a tie for the major league lead with 15. He’s tied with Mookie Betts and J.D. Martinez of the Red Sox. Mark Trumbo and Adam Jones also homered. Obviously, all of the Orioles’ homers were of the solo variety. Jose Abreu contributed a pair of doubles for the Pale Hose. The O’s are now 15-32; the White Sox are 13-31. Yuck.

Twins 4, Tigers 2: Jose Berrios may be back on track. He struck out 10 and held the Cardinals to one run over 7 1/3 innings his last time out. On Monday night against the Tigers, he limited the opposition to two runs on three hits and two walks with nine strikeouts in eight innings. Fernando Rodney worked a 1-2-3 ninth for the save.

Cardinals 6, Royals 0: The Cardinals continue to get dominant starting pitching. After Jack Flaherty struck out 13 Phillies on Sunday, Miles Mikolas followed up by tossing a shutout against the Royals. Though he only struck out eight while holding the Royals to four hits and a walk. Tyler O'Neill homered in his third consecutive game and Matt Carpenter also went yard in a 3-for-4 night. The Royals are on pace for 114 losses.

Rockies 2, Dodgers 1: Carlos Gonzalez broke a 1-1 tie with an infield RBI single in the eighth inning. The other two runs scored on solo home runs from Max Muncy and Gerardo Para. Both times combined for only six hits and committed a combined four errors — three by the Dodgers. German Marquez tossed seven solid innings for the Rockies, striking out five while allowing the one run. Walker Buehler matched him with seven one-run innings, fanning six.

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.