Matt Garza’s Tweets As A Cause Célèbre For Sports Feminism And Its Poseurs

Your word of the day is misogynist.

I didn’t realize that Matt Garza’s statements were so important that when he says something that is viewed as offensive to women it elicits the strong response and bandwagon jumping we’re seeing from those who are acting angry or trying to make themselves sound progressive.

Rangers’ righty Garza created a controversy when he responded to Athletics’ infielder Eric Sogard executing a squeeze bunt by jawing at Sogard and then going after Sogard and his wife on Twitter. You can read about the exchange here. Baseball’s true tough guys, long since retired (Dave Parker, Ray Knight, Kevin Mitchell), are all asking in unison: “What the hell is Twitter?”

What was a silly Twitter fight turned into a flag-waving cause for those who are either declaring themselves hard-core feminists and seeing gender-based conspiracies detracting from their sports knowledge or a sycophantic agree-fest for those who don’t want to anger the aforementioned feminists. This piece on CBS Sports was emblematic of a distancing from male-female chasm. The editorial-like conclusion was as follows:

Garza needs to grow up and accept the fact he got beat on the field fair and square.

It’s a unique skill to combine elementary school simplicity with parental scolding and self-indulgent solidarity. All that’s missing is a “Nyah, nyah, nyah” at the end.

What you have is women clutching at this like the newest-latest of reasons why they’re disrespected and men who try to make sure they’re onboard and won’t be the next target of the angered masses.The race/gender card is so cheap and easy to use that few even dare to use it anymore unless they have nothing else to say or are desperately seeking attention and approval. If a person’s gender or sexual orientation is used as a reason to denigrate their opinion, it’s a pretty good bet that the person doing the denigrating isn’t all that bright to begin with. So why the over-the-top reaction?

In and of itself, this “story” is ridiculous. Garza should probably have thought twice before choosing to engage in this kind of diatribe, but he’s right in his last tweet of the day when he basically told people if they don’t like him, don’t follow. It’s that simple…unless there’s an ulterior motive. And in this case and any case in which there’s a perceived or crafted offense against a gender or group, there’s a clear ulterior motive of individuals drawing attention to themselves by latching onto this silliness to further their own ends and taking off with it like Usain Bolt at a track meet.

What we see from women who are mock-offended by Garza is another opportunity to express how unenlightened some men are as to the battle of the sexes and that statements such as those made by Garza are “hindering” their cause. Except it’s not hindering their cause. Much like Keith Hernandez’s rant about the Padres’ female trainer being in uniform in the dugout and Rob Dibble’s sexist comments in the broadcast booth, these are not men in a position of power where it matters what they say. Self-righteous political correctness is exponentially worse than political correctness. If it were a GM or an owner who said something like this, then it’s a reason to reply with a level of force. It’s Matt Garza. Unless there’s an agenda, who cares what he says?

Share|

//

The Invisible Rose

As ridiculous as it sounds for Pete Rose’s name to have been expunged from mere mention on Topps Baseball Cards as baseball’s career hits leader, what were they supposed to do and why is it even a story?

All the context provided makes perfect sense. PED users such as Alex Rodriguez, Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro haven’t been banished as Rose has. Accused, suspected and prosecuted for perjury, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds are still listed on all records. No one has ever sought to remove O.J. Simpson from any of the NFL record books. Did Rose, as a player, do worse things that these people?

For all his activities and selfishness, Rose always played the game on the up-and-up. Charlie Hustle was a hustler and a self-promoter. His headfirst slides were done to garner attention to himself even when they were totally unnecessary. The running to first base on a walk was a trademark to stand out from the crowd. He accumulated praise for maximizing limited abilities as if he couldn’t play at all and clawed his way to the top of the record books, but it’s ignored that amid all the salable perception of “Rose made it with a lack of ability,” it’s not true. He was a great player and would have been a great player even if he’d behaved as lackadaisically as Robinson Cano does.

It’s a matter floating morals. Compartmentalized into legality, illegality and semantics, Rose is off the MLB officially licensed products while players who have done far worse to the game itself are still there. MLB was complicit in the use of performance enhancers and has put up a front of trying to eradicate the sport of this type of drug use, but that front is somewhat laissez faire, knowing that for as many suspensions, tests and investigations they perform, players will still go to the Biogenesis Clinics around the world and seek a method to dance through the raindrops and beat the tests. By all reasonable accounts, Ryan Braun got away with likely PED use to win the MVP in 2011 and avoided a suspension on a technicality. Then his name was discovered in the records of Biogenesis.

The rules for inclusion are what they are and because of Rose’s lifetime banishment, he’s not permitted to be mentioned. Of course it’s silly and selective, but Rose isn’t being singled out any more than the PED users are receiving a pass. It’s just the way it is.

The only reason this is a story is because it’s made into a story and Rose has pleaded that he wants his name reinstated—probably because it can make him more money. Perhaps Topps is trying to drum up interest in the cards in the event that collectors will see the omission of Rose as a future novelty if he’s ever reinstated, posthumously or not. Who’s going to Topps for recordkeeping anyway? And who’s going to MLB for propriety and logic?

No one.

Share|

//

Reds, Indians and Diamondbacks 3-Way Trade Hinges on Bauer and Gregorius

The Reds, Indians and Diamondbacks completed a three team trade that broke down in the following way:

• Reds get OF Shin-Soo Choo, INF Jason Donald and cash from the Indians
• Indians get RHP Trevor Bauer, RHP Matt Albers and RHP Bryan Shaw from the Diamondbacks; and OF Drew Stubbs from the Reds
• Diamondbacks get SS Didi Gregorius from the Reds; and 1B Lars Anderson and LHP Tony Sipp from the Indians

Let’s look at this from the perspectives of all three.

—

For the Reds:

The 29-year-old Choo was back to his normal self in 2012 after a terrible 2011 season that included an injury to his oblique and a DUI arrest. He hits for power, steals bases with a high rate of success, walks, and hits for average. He does strike out a lot, his defense is statistically on the decline, and he’s a free agent at the end of the 2012 season. The Reds have said they’re going to play him in center field but it’s a ridiculous idea. Reds’ right fielder Jay Bruce has experience in center and Choo has played 10 career games at the position in the majors.

Choo is going to want a lot of money on the market next winter, will be in demand and is represented by Scott Boras. The Reds aren’t expecting him to sign a long-term extension, so he’s a one-year rental and a good one. He makes the team better offensively than they were with the free-swinging strikeout machine Stubbs, and as long as Bruce can play an adequate center, the defensive downgrade is negligible—Stubbs wasn’t exactly Paul Blair out there.

Donald is a versatile backup infielder replacing former utilityman Todd Frazier who will take over as the everyday third baseman.

Gregorius was blocked by Zack Cozart at shortstop and the Reds did very well considering they only gave up Stubbs and a minor league shortstop they really didn’t need.

—

For the Indians:

For better or worse, new Indians manager Terry Francona is having his voice heard by the front office and they’re looking toward the long-term by acquiring a potential frontline starter in Bauer. Albers is known to Francona from their days with the Red Sox. Also known by Francona is Anderson, for whom he had no use with the Red Sox and couldn’t wait to be rid of from the Indians.

Stubbs is a decent journeyman outfielder with pop. He’s going to strike out over 200 times a year and combining him with Mark Reynolds in the Indians lineup will create enough wind power to benefit both the Indians and the Reds by reducing energy costs for the entire state if they choose to use their baseball detriments for a statewide positive.

—

For the Diamondbacks:

Apparently Bauer’s “attitude” issues were a problem in spite of the Diamondbacks repeatedly saying they weren’t. If a rookie is arriving in the big leagues with a unique motion, a big mouth and he won’t listen to anyone, there’s going to be tension especially when the manager is an old-school type in Kirk Gibson and the pitching coach is a former big league All-Star in Charles Nagy. Teams love a youngster with attitude and feistiness until they need to bridle him and that attitude and feistiness circles back on them and he’s ignoring them. That appears to be what happened with Bauer. In general, very few players—especially high draft choices in whom clubs have invested a lot of money—aren’t going to change until they decide to do so or if they repeatedly fail at the big league level and find themselves trapped in the minors. With Bauer, the “this or that” was about three years away, if it happened at all, so they cut their losses.

There are a couple of ways to look at this: first you can credit the Diamondbacks for accepting that the player they selected 3^rd overall in 2011 isn’t a fit for their organization and they moved him before concerns turned into a full-blown disaster. Or they can be criticized because they drafted him and should’ve known all of these things beforehand, calculating the negatives with the positives and perhaps shying away from him for another player.

That they got Gregorius as the centerpiece with the useful lefty reliever Sipp (he can get out both lefties and righties), and Anderson is a very limited return on a former top three pick who, to our knowledge, isn’t hurt.

No one should be surprised considering the warning flags on Bauer. I wrote about it before he was drafted here when he was absurdly compared to Tim Lincecum, and it was discussed in this Yahoo piece. Those same warning flags were basically screaming to stay away from him. I wouldn’t have touched Bauer, but the Diamondbacks drafted him based on talent and it took a year-and-a-half for them to see that that iconoclasm was either not going to change or the package they unwrapped wasn’t worth the time and aggravation it was going to cost to get him to change.

The Indians are banking on that talent, got him for relatively little, and didn’t have to pay the $3.4 million signing bonus Bauer received from the Diamondbacks. Perhaps Francona can get through to him or they’ll just let him be in a way the Diamondbacks wouldn’t. Francona’s far more laid back than the hair-trigger Gibson.

He’s an iffy prospect at this point and it’s clear GM Kevin Towers‘s decision to trade him is an admission that they shouldn’t have drafted him in the first place; they realized that and dumped him before it truly spiraled. What makes the decision to select Bauer even worse is that Towers is often lauded for his player-like sensibilities. He’s not a highly educated outsider who decided to enter a baseball front office. He played in the minors and knows players and the clubhouse dynamic, yet still chose to draft Bauer and look past the obvious.

Towers is a mediocre GM. The Bauer drafting and subsequent trade is a blot on his resume right up there with his ridiculous waiver claim on Randy Myers in 1998 while GM of the Padres—a decision that almost got him fired. With the Diamondbacks, he benefited greatly from a lot of luck and pieces that were in place prior to his hiring and the club won the NL West in 2011 before falling back closer in line to their talent level with a .500 finish in 2012.

Towers compared Gregorius to a “young Derek Jeter.” Having watched video clips of him, Gregorius looks more like a lefty swinging Hanley Ramirez. At first glance (there’s a video clip below), he’s impressive and fills a need at shortstop for the club. If he evolves into that (sans the Ramirez-style attitude that got Bauer shipped out), then it will be a great deal for the Diamondbacks. If not, it was costly on a multitude of levels for Towers, whose rose, as expected, is losing its bloom in the Arizona desert.

Share|

//

The Rays-Royals Trade Part II—The Responses

When someone has a following—justified or not—they can pretty much do or say anything and that base is going to agree with them; purchase what they’re selling; and spread the supposed gospel. When this is done, not in public where there’s a face and consequences, but from the privacy and safety of behind a computer screen, on blogs, and in social media, it degenerates into an irresistible force crashing into an immovable object; of those who spout theories vs individuals who have an actual stake in the outcome.

The Royals traded top minor league outfield prospect Wil Myers, righty pitcher Jake Odorizzi, lefty pitcher Mike Montgomery, and low minor league infielder Patrick Leonard to the Rays for righty pitchers James Shields and Wade Davis and a player to be named later. This sparked reactions that ran the gamut, mostly falling in line with the factions of baseball analysis establishing their positions and following their leaders.

Let’s look at the reactions and assessments.

—

Royals GM Dayton Moore

Moore may or may not be under pressure to win in 2013 with his job on the line. His response to the criticism of this trade can be read here in a Bob Nightengale piece, but he seemed most annoyed at the implication by ESPN’s Keith Law that Moore did this to try and save his job.

Law has a right to his opinion—presumably there will be a Latin-laced reply coming soon—but looking at it from Moore’s point-of-view, having his baseball GM chops would be far preferable to having his integrity questioned. The entire basis of the argument is somewhat faulty. Does it turn Moore into a conniving schemer if he makes a move to try and win now if that’s what his bosses want?

I can see where Law and Rany Jazayerli are coming from in questioning the wisdom of this trade. Jazayerli makes a compelling case on Grantland. But the overwhelming and toe-the-line agreement coming from their loyalists is bordering on disturbing. If you’re the GM of a baseball team who’s spent your life in baseball and is respected, perhaps not for the work as a GM, but as an overall body of work in scouting and development and you’re forced to endure the taunts of a guy who is working at Best Buy and used his break to tweet about what an idiot you are, it would tend to get on your nerves. Multiply that by 1000. By 10,000. How would you react?

And this is the problem with the new age of baseball. Everyone’s an expert, thinks they know more than baseball lifers, and is free to critique with impunity. There’s no checking of credentials before they’ve carved themselves a forum and are somehow given credibility through osmosis and fantasy. It’s beyond comprehension for someone who has never picked up a baseball in his life and started watching the game two years ago to have the unmitigated arrogance to think his ability to read a stat sheet has injected him with some form of expertise.

Following the initial ganging up on Moore based on past maneuvers and current perceptions, the judgment of his trade has been mostly split with even people who are immersed in prospects such as Jim Callis saying that he doesn’t think it’s a terrible deal.

As I said in my prior posting concerning this trade, I think it’s an understandable decision for both the Rays and Royals.

—

The Jeff Francoeur factor

I’m missing the connection where it was said that the presence of Jeff Francoeur was the “reason” the Royals felt comfortable trading Myers.

If the goal is to create a firestorm, the easiest way to do it is inserting Francoeur into any conversation whether he belongs there or not. This trade had nothing to do with Francoeur vs Myers. It had to do with the Royals using a prime asset for the future to get themselves better in the present. You can disagree with the logic, but not by using Francoeur to bolster your case because not even the Royals think that Francoeur is the long-term solution in right field. In fact, they might be working on a deal to find someone to replace him as we speak. Then what’s the reaction going to be?

Was Myers the long-term solution in right field? Perhaps. Perhaps not. It’s pointless to compare him to other players based on numbers, him winning minor league player of the year, other attributes used to provide “reasons” why he shouldn’t have been traded. The number of factors that go into a prospect making it or not making it and when he does it are so vast and variable that the word “prospect” is rife with questions on its face. It comes down to projection, analysis, opportunity, and performance.

I don’t know what Myers is and nor do you. It’s easy to attach oneself to buzzwords and think you know, but the Royals have had Myers since he was drafted and clearly felt that he was expendable in comparison to other players they might have been able to slip into the deal in his place  such as Eric Hosmer or Mike Moustakas and still gotten Shields or a Shields-type.

Truth be told, I would not have made this trade if I were the Royals. But I’m not in Moore’s position and the opinion “I wouldn’t have done it” doesn’t make it wrong.

—

Andrew Friedman lust

It’s interesting that in the above-linked Baseball America Q&A, Callis says that the trade moves the Rays from middle of the pack in terms of a farm system from “middle of the pack” to “upper quartile.”

The “brilliant” GM of the Rays who stockpiles prospects and uses cutting edge, secretive techniques to find players only had a middle of the pack farm system? And Jazayerli writes in the Grantland piece of Moore, “After the 2010 season, the Royals had fashioned the greatest farm system in baseball, the greatest anyone had seen in years.”

But Moore is an imbecile who deserves to be fired?

How does this work? If someone agrees with you or has success based on a myriad of undefinable, unpredictable aspects, they’re a “genius.” If they don’t they’re subject to relentless attacks not just on their credibility but on their professionalism and integrity?

Any GM is only one bad deal away from being put on notice; one bad season—regardless of prior success—of being fired. Considering the pressures and scrutiny they have to endure now in comparison to 20 years ago, I don’t know why anyone would want the job as a GM in the first place.

As for Friedman, fans and media members with about 25 of the other 29 teams are musing as to what their team would look like if he were their GM. Again, like Myers, we don’t know. Friedman has a freedom with the Rays to do what he wants because he works hand-in-hand with his ownership and has that success rate to fall back on. But he also has freedom because the Rays don’t have any money; have a limited fanbase; and in spite of recent years, an excuse for failure circling back to the lack of money.

Would Friedman be able to do the things he does—trading top-tier arms like Shields or Matt Garza—if he were running the Yankees, Mets, Phillies, Red Sox or whoever? No. He wouldn’t. Because those are different markets, with different needs, different constraints, and different expectations than the ones confronting him now with the Rays. Much like taking a player out of a situation that he can handle like Josh Hamilton in Texas and putting him in New York, Boston or Philly can have severe consequences to him as a person and a player, it’s the same thing with front office people, managers, and coaches.

Friedman is who he is and does what he does because of a situation with the Rays that is unlike most others.

Much like Myers, there’s no quantifying it because we don’t know.

Share|

//

In Miami, Castro is a Dirty Word

Ozzie Guillen isn’t the random, out of control raving maniac he portrays himself to be. Most of his outrageous statements are designed to take the pressure off his team and put the focus on himself. He’s done it before and will undoubtedly do it again. But the last thing he wanted to do when taking over as manager of the Marlins was to say positive things about Fidel Castro.

The Marlins’ hopes to draw fans to their new ballpark hinge heavily on the Cuban population in Miami. That population is only so prevalent in Miami because of Castro’s autocratic regime taking over Cuba and their desire to escape to freedom.

According to this USA Today piece, in a Time Magazine profile Guillen said the following:

“I love Fidel Castro.”

Then he said:

“I respect Fidel Castro. You know why? A lot of people have wanted to kill Fidel Castro for the last 60 years, but that (SOB) is still here.”

The “why” Guillen said this is irrelevant. Whether Guillen was kidding around; making a blanket statement about someone who he clearly was, in some way, comparing to himself as a survivor; or said something to intentionally put the focus on himself rather than his team has no bearing on the end result and his failure to think before speaking.

There’s a big difference between off-field idiocy and on-field psychological tricks. Guillen has his hands full with keeping Carlos Zambrano in line; convincing Hanley Ramirez that moving to third base is good for his career; maintaining the health of Jose Reyes; and navigating the glued together clubhouse and roster while attracting fans to watch the team play.

The one thing you do not want to do is alienate your targeted base; to make it easier for a potential customer to say they don’t want to consume your product.

The Marlins need the Cuban-American communtity to come to the new ballpark and watch their team. With a revamped roster that’s off to a slow start, they’re clearly going to take time to gel.

The team gelling is largely up to Guillen.

Already owner Jeffrey Loria is under investigation by the SEC for the financing of that new ballpark; the amenities and gaudiness of the stadium itself are being ridiculed; and Loria was under attack for trotting Muhammad Ali out to take part in the first pitch ceremony.

They didn’t need the highly paid new manager to make off-field controversies worse.

Guillen’s act is to be front and center and the Marlins knew that when they hired him. It’s part of the reason they hired him in the first place. That said, there’s a line between ripping players publicly; chastising umpires on Twitter; challenging and questioning your GM; bickering with coaches and opposing managers—all of which Guillen has done in the past and will do in the future—and saying something geopolitically ignorant and inciteful as declaring one’s love for Castro while smack in the middle of a city that reviles Castro as the epitome of evil.

Guillen crossed that line and has apologized.

That apology should be accepted and everyone should move on.

But everyone moving on doesn’t include continuing to line Loria’s pockets by purchasing tickets; validating the hiring of Guillen by going to the games, spending money and partaking in the carnival.

The complaints and protests will die down; the team will play better than they have so far; the damage done to Marlins’ already sketchy ticket sales won’t be so easy to fix.

Share|

//

David Samson’s Controversial Comments(?)

It’s an easy story to write and create a buzz to report that Marlins’ team president David Samson made a series of ill-advised comments about everyone in Miami from the politicians to the citizens to one of his club’s new stars, Jose Reyes.

Samson’s reputation as a person isn’t sterling. He’s a Little Napoleon-type who lucked his way into baseball when his father-in-law Jeffrey Loria purchased the Montreal Expos, wound up as a high-ranking member of their front office and moved on to the Marlins when Loria took control of that club.

Samson has a lot to say, interferes in baseball decisions, and bosses the players around.

But in this case, I believe he’s telling the truth when he says he was misquoted by Miami Today.

You can read a synopsis of the initial comments attributed to Samson and the explanation here on USA Today’s Daily Pitch.

Loria and, by extension, Samson made out like bandits on the deal for the Marlins’ new stadium; I don’t think anyone has a high regard for politicians anywhere; and while it’s possible that Reyes said something to the tune of wanting to maximize his contract, I doubt he said it in the context that the Samson quotes imply.

But here’s the reality: Samson does seem to think he’s the smartest guy in the room.

Politicians are seen to be self-interested and more clever and shady than smart.

Reyes did want to make as much money as he could.

No one’s ever accused the Marlins of running a charity. They’re looking to make money and run their club as a business. It’s not a public trust; in general, the Florida fans aren’t interested in baseball; the team wasn’t going to get a stadium if they didn’t use a little chicanery; and they’re one ownership that openly does what other clubs do but never admit—treat the players like chattel.

It certainly would be refreshing for a person in power to say the things Samson was accused of saying, but when he denies and explains he sounds like a man telling the truth.

As disliked as he is, he’s not stupid—at least not stupid enough to say that stuff publicly even if it’s more than likely what he actually thinks.

—

Click here for a free sample of my new book, Paul Lebowitz’s 2012 Baseball Guide. Links to purchase are in the posting or in the sidebar to the left.

Share|

//