Marquee Is in the Eye of the Beholder
Wed, Mar 19, 2008
by Geoff Young
We already know that the Padres knocked more road extra-base hits than any other team in MLB in 2007 (those of you interested in helping me keep a roof over my head will also find this information on page 37 of the Ducksnorts 2008 Baseball Annual). The other day, in our spirited discussion of the club’s declining attendance, we noted the lack of marquee players as one possible factor keeping San Diegans from embracing the Padres as much as they might.
We also noted that if Adrian Gonzalez played his home games in a more forgiving environment, he likely would be recognized as such a marquee player. With that lengthy prelude out of the way, here are the top 10 individual road slugging percentages in the National League in 2007 (minimum 250 PA):
- Chipper Jones, Braves, .643
- Albert Pujols, Cardinals, .642
- Alfonso Soriano, Cubs, .636
- Ryan Braun, Brewers, .610
- Ryan Howard, Phillies, .588
- Prince Fielder, Brewers, .572
- Carlos Beltran, Mets, .571
- Lance Berkman, Astros, .570
- Adrian Gonzalez, Padres, .570
- Jeremy Hermida, Marlins, .548
One-year wonder? Not really. Here are the top 10 in the NL for 2006-2007 (minimum 500 PA):
- Albert Pujols, Cardinals, .647
- Chipper Jones, Braves, .632
- Ryan Howard, Phillies, .626
- Carlos Beltran, Mets, .625
- Alfonso Soriano, Cubs, .594
- Lance Berkman, Astros, .575
- Carlos Delgado, Mets, .562
- Prince Fielder, Brewers, .551
- Adrian Gonzalez, Padres, .550
- Miguel Cabrera, Marlins, .526
Nine of these guys get a lot of play in the national media. Can you find the one who doesn’t?
. . .
Programming note: I’ll be appearing on “SportsWrap” on Sunday, March 23, to talk about the Padres. Those of you here in San Diego can tune to Channel 7/39 at 11:35 p.m. PT to catch all the madness and mayhem. Big thanks to Derek Togerson and company for having me on the show!
Picking up where last year's version left off, the Ducksnorts 2008 Baseball Annual provides in-depth analysis of and commentary on the San Diego Padres. Get your copy today.
March 19, 2008 at 9:31 am
God I hate how stuck-up baseball players are. What a bunch of bitchy little primadonnas. How much do you get paid? Suck it up and play the games: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c.....ml?cnn=yes
March 19, 2008 at 9:33 am
OT … GY says he’s “out of my element” when it comes to March Madness (and besides, we all need him to be focus’d on baseball/padres
) … I’ve created a “group” at ESPN … join it at your own risk (I see Didi and MrUtah are already *in*!) …
Get in the action now: http://games.espn.go.com/tcmen/group?groupID=26015
Game Front: http://games.espn.go.com/tcmen/frontpage
Group: LynchMob Invitational
Password: mcanulty
Bring it!
March 19, 2008 at 9:35 am
1: Uh….bitchy? They’re not agitating for more money for themselves. They’re agitating for the other people who are required to go on the trip to be paid.
March 19, 2008 at 9:35 am
17 cuts …
http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....notes.html
… biggest surprise: Edgar Gonzalez.
Morton and Zarate sent to AAA Portland.
Antonelli and LeBlanc were “reassigned”.
March 19, 2008 at 9:36 am
#1: I assume you are being facetious? See #3.
March 19, 2008 at 9:38 am
4: Gonzalez would have been a better choice than many past Padre utility players, but not being able to play LF, and not being fast, put him behind Crabbe.
I wonder if they’ll jump Antonlli and LeBlanc to AAA. Neither had a full year at San Antonio.
March 19, 2008 at 9:41 am
4 … that link also includes some comments about the #5 spot in the rotation … and this tidbit …
“But if the Padres have a surplus of starting pitchers, some might be used as bait for a center fielder. ”
… wow, methinks I/we might be underestimating the players we have … or else this UT writer (and/or the Padres) is overestimating them?
March 19, 2008 at 9:46 am
Also, Mike Gardner, Rule 5 pick, was returned to the Yanks …
http://sandiego.padres.mlb.com.....mp;c_id=sd
March 19, 2008 at 9:46 am
7: UT overestimating them. What are we going to get for Ledezma or Rusch?
If we could turn Ledezma, Geer, and a reliever into DeJesus….but that ship has sailed, they’re not going to commit that much money to an Edmonds replacement.
March 19, 2008 at 9:56 am
A “national” look at the OF situation …
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/s.....amp;ATT=49
… with some interesting background on the Gerut signing.
March 19, 2008 at 9:59 am
1 & 3: Not being facetious at all. All of these players and coaches should be treated exactly as if this is any other road trip. If MLB is deviating from any of the standard deals involved in road trips, then there is a problem. But it looks like these coaches just aren’t getting paid a bonus.
I’m sorry, but I have no sympathy here. I do not get paid extra when I go on trips for my job. It’s part of my job. I wouldn’t bitch and whine or expect anyone to boycott because of this.
As I said, if MLB is treating this situation as an ordinary road trip, then the coaches shouldn’t be whining about this. If MLB is acting differently, then there’s a problem.
March 19, 2008 at 10:03 am
11: You don’t work in an environment that is governed by an agreement between a union and management, then. MLB has to get the players to agree. The bonuses were what MLB gave in order to get the agreement.
Lots of people get paid extra for going on the road. Per-diem.
Furthermore, the players standing up for other employees is the antithesis of “prima donna” behavior.
March 19, 2008 at 10:04 am
11: I haven’t read the article, but I still have a question for you.
Why should it be treated as an ordinary road trip when it clearly was not an ordinary road trip but an extraordinary one?
March 19, 2008 at 10:09 am
#7: The Padres may have a surplus of starting pitching, but most of those guys aren’t very good.
#11: Interesting stance. Personally, I applaud the players for sticking up for their coaches.
March 19, 2008 at 10:10 am
Yeah, you have to think if Adrian was just up the road in Anaheim or LA, he would not only put up bigger (unadjusted) power numbers but get a lot more media attention as well. BP runs “translated” stats and I find it odd that they give Adrian very little bump in power. I wonder if they’re not adjusting properly for Petco.
March 19, 2008 at 10:56 am
11: You don’t get paid to go on trips for your job? That doesn’t sound right to me. Many companies pay you for your mileage, time, food, etc. The players arent demanding more money anyway, they are asking for it for their coaches. Seems anything but prima-donna to me.
March 19, 2008 at 10:59 am
That list shows how good Chipper, Cabrera and Beltran are since all the rest of them play 1B. Seriously, how stacked is 1B in the National League? Adrian has a .550 road slugging percentage over the past two years and he’s the sixth best 1B in the NL over that time (although he’s probably passed Delgado now).
Of course, the Padres do have a couple of marquee players — Jake Peavy and Chris Young (especially at home). We all know that unless they draft and develop one, there will never be a league leading slugging position player here. However, there are always going to be awesome pitchers here. It appears that people would prefer it to be the opposite yet I think it’s more beneficial for a team to play in a pitchers park. It certainly appears that it’s harder to build a winning team in an extreme hitters park (like Colorado) then an extreme pitchers park (here).
March 19, 2008 at 11:04 am
Sorry to be late to the “why does SD not stick with the fans” debate. I live in SF, so cannot “feel” the intensity of the fan participation, but my suspicion was SD did better than the blog was giving it credit. Aside from the annoying transplant factor (looked for data on this, but could not find any), here is my list of home attendance data by % of DMA population. When you had two teams in the same DMA (NYC: Yankees, Mets; LA: Dodgers, Angels) I combined the team attendance and divided by same DMA number. So… (not so easy to read)
Market Pop Attendance Yield
MIL 1,431,300 2,869,144 200%
STL 2,308,400 3,552,166 154%
CLE 1,782,400 2,275,911 128%
CIN 1,751,400 2,056,453 117%
SDG 2,515,100 2,790,074 111%
DEN 2,244,300 2,376,250 106%
KCA 1,592,800 1,616,867 102%
WDC 4,210,000 4,126,401 98%
PIT 1,986,600 1,749,142 88%
SFO 5,969,400 5,145,046 86%
MSP 2,683,000 2,296,383 86%
SEA 3,328,100 2,672,409 80%
DET 3,866,500 3,047,124 79%
BOS 3,874,600 2,970,755 77%
CHI 7,784,400 5,936,857 76%
PHX 3,173,200 2,316,507 73%
PHL 4,350,000 3,108,331 71%
LAX 10,902,400 7,222,385 66%
HOU 4,639,000 3,020,405 65%
ATL 4,267,500 2,745,203 64%
TAM 2,350,000 1,389,031 59%
NYC 15,344,600 8,125,822 53%
DAL 4,973,000 2,353,862 47%
MIA 3,538,400 1,370,511 39%
SDG comes out 5th. Granted this methodology seems to favor smaller market teams, it does point out to the fact that it is a lot easier to fill parks with big markets (the parks are all about the same size) than with small ones. The feverish Red Sox Nation only yields 77% of their DMA, while Milwaukee almost doubles theirs.
I think national media coverage adds to the bias by following the major markets more closely (where the money is), so even if the portion of the local populace is just as engaged, and your team is having some great stories, if you don’t see those stories on ESPN you may start to think they are less interesting than whatever Papelbon is eating for breakfast, or how “the Rocket” is faring in the minors.
Blogs like this are the antidote. It allows the fans to connect in a way that we could not 10 years ago, and am thankful for that.
So, instead of searching for the marquee player, let us recognize we are drawing pretty well, keep celebrating our team and enjoy the season.
March 19, 2008 at 11:06 am
I get paid for time, and I think there might be a per diem, but it’s clearly stipulated in my company’s employee handbook.
You guys are certainly right that my employment situation differs from that of the players because I don’t have a union to represent me. Does MLBPA include coaches?
I suppose that the players trying to get the coaches their fair share is noble. However, I am of the opinion that this trip should be treated like any other road trip. All rules that apply to the players should apply to coaches. Given that I don’t know the details of how road trips work, if per diem/stipends exist on a road trip, they should be applicable here.
There was a rumor floating around that the Dodgers’ starters refused to go to China because they weren’t geting a bonus. I personally don’t think travelling should get you a bonus, regardless. You should be paid for your time (inlcuding travel) and accomdations should be provided for you. However, MLB players (and I assume staff, but I could be wrong) are not paid hourly. Everyone is on salary.
March 19, 2008 at 11:13 am
A guy who posts on MadFriars has posted some comments and pics from Peoria …
http://planetpadres.blogspot.c.....-2008.html
… including video of Chase’s HR last Friday night … good stuff!
March 19, 2008 at 11:17 am
Re: roster cuts. I was surprised Edgar Gonzalez got sent out so quick. This must mean one of two things. Either he’s far behind Robles and Rodriguez defensively or they’re planning on keeping both Gerut and McAnulty on the roster, along with Hairston. That would be a bench consisting of Barrett, T. Clark, Crabbe, McAnulty, and Gerut. No room for an extra infielder if they keep all those guys. Crabbe would be the only backup at 2B, SS, and 3B. At least, that’s what I’m guessing.
March 19, 2008 at 11:26 am
Barrett, Clark and Crabbe are roster certainties I think. That leaves two more spots (or possibly two more if Edmonds and Giles start the season on the DL). I think Davanon is going to be on the bench because out of all the OF’ers, only Hairston and Crabbe bat right-handed. The last spot would seem to be Headley as it appears that he’s going to be the starting left-fielder. I’m not sure where that leaves McAnulty and Gerut. I guess they could both make the team if Giles and Edmonds start the season on the DL and then the Padres could decide what to do when they are ready to play. I still think they have to make a trade, I can’t see them opening the season without a CF (assuming Edmonds starts off on the DL).
March 19, 2008 at 11:33 am
#18: Interesting stuff, Jay. I wonder what kind of trends the teams surrounding the Padres have experienced in recent years. Are any of them seeing their attendance slip as well? There’s a lot of room for exploration in this area.
March 19, 2008 at 11:38 am
19: And your Employee Handbook is the equivalent of the agreement that MLB reached with the players. The difference with baseball is that management can’t change the Handbook without getting the players to agree. That’s the deal.
It doesn’t even matter whether the coaches are in the union (they’re not). From all accounts, MLB agreed with the players that the coaches and certain other staff would get the bonus. Then they changed their minds.
What should get you a bonus is whether the rules of your workplace stipulate that you get one, or can negotiate for one. Salaried vs non-exempt plays no part in it.
March 19, 2008 at 11:44 am
19: You bring up a lot of good points. I think I overreacted initially because I tend to have a visceral reaction whenver I hear people in professional sports complain of salaries. It’s absolutely inequivalent to compare my situation to theirs, but that’s really the only personal frame of reference that I have.
Did MLB promise the bonus and pull it back? Or was the bonus only for the players?
March 19, 2008 at 11:44 am
25: That should have referenced 24.
March 19, 2008 at 11:53 am
25: All the reports I’ve seen are that the bonus was promised to the coaches as well. Did they write it down? I don’t know, but if you’ve got the parties in a room and 95% of them recall the promise, it’s probably an oral contract or whatever the legal term is.
March 19, 2008 at 12:23 pm
11: If MLB reneged on promises they already made, I have no problem with the players standing up for the people that works to make the trip happen.
It’s not just another road-trip.
March 19, 2008 at 12:54 pm
MLB will gain both money and exposure from the Japan trip. If the hitting and pitching coaches, etc. aren’t getting that money, then Reanimated Zombie Bud will. I would love to get forty grand to go watch a baseball game in Japan and tell Coco Crisp his swing sucks, but it’s not going to happen. If people want to get angry about how much players and coaches make, then they should stop buying tickets, jerseys, sports packages, and the like. I do agree that it’s annoying to hear players whining about money, but that’s a different issue.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to build a time machine and go back in time to teach myself how to throw a left-handed curve and change-up.
March 19, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Ug … baseball’s a business, but that doesn’t mean i have to enjoy discussions of labor strife and broken promises … too bad it’s an “off day” on the spring schedule … also too bad milb.com doesn’t cover the spring games like mlb.com does …
March 19, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Rob McQuown ranks prospects:
http://blog.baseballdigestdail.....89939.html
Chase is at 25 and Blanks is 29, but no commentary for Blanks.
March 19, 2008 at 1:45 pm
31 … thanks for the link … I kinda like the comp of Headley to Bonilla … seems like an early match to me …
March 19, 2008 at 1:50 pm
OT … A Chris Gwynn sighting …
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.....;fext=.jsp
March 19, 2008 at 2:17 pm
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=3301195
A few more words on the Red Sox dispute: It wasn’t just the coaches who the players were standing up for. It was the trainers and the staff. Some of these trainers make $50K to $100K, according to John Kruk(!).
I think that’s very little, considering they take car of multi-million dollar athletes and that some of the markets they play in are so expensive. For example, for a player, making $100K in San Diego is not the same as Minnesota, for example.
March 19, 2008 at 4:09 pm
From Peoria-
Antonelli and LeBlanc were doing morning workouts with and went with the AAA team to their away game.
Wolf had a fairly bad outing with the High A team against the Brewers. 83 pitches, and five walks (at least) in four innings of work. His control was bad, lots of pitches high and more in the dirt. On the upside, Adrian hit two doubles and Hairston hit a homerun.
March 19, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Ken Rosenthal writes that Jody Gerut will be the Opening Day leftfielder and Scott Hairston will be in CF (if Edmonds opens the season on the DL).
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/s.....amp;ATT=49
That could be one ugly defensive outfield if Giles is in right.
March 19, 2008 at 6:01 pm
36 … nice link … did you find it in comment #10
March 19, 2008 at 6:48 pm
3B woes continue for the Dog’s … http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/ne.....;type=lgns … aw, that makes me cry
March 19, 2008 at 7:06 pm
BP’s STAT OF THE DAY today features an old favorite of mine!
Top 5 2008 AL Stolen Base Leaders, by PECOTA Projected SB
Player, Team, SB
Freddy Guzman, TEX, 37
Carl Crawford, TBA, 35
Brian Roberts, BAL, 35
Chone Figgins, LAA, 33
Bradley Coon, LAA, 33
… run, Freddy, run! ‘cept that now Freddy’s the backup CF’er for the Detroit Tigers … so it doesn’t seem likely that he’ll get enough playing time to steal 37 bases … hey, maybe the Padres could trade for him to play CF @ Petco???
March 19, 2008 at 7:28 pm
38: I don’t know, I tend to think anything happening to endanger Nomar’s playing time is a bad thing for the Padres. However, after reading the article, I heartily endorse Blake DeWitt of the career minor league OBP of .332 and 300 PA above A starting for the Dodgers at 3B.
March 19, 2008 at 8:09 pm
I listened to Sandy Alderson on XX tonight. While non-committal, since decisions had not been made yet, nor was it time to make those decisions, it sounded to me that PMac would make the team, due to his excellent spring and lack of options, and Headley would go back to AAA. My impression was that that since PMac was out of options, it would provide more depth to keep PMac in the Majors and have Headley provide the outfield depth in AAA, in case he was needed. Plus, Headley would get more at bats in Portland.
March 19, 2008 at 8:35 pm
18, Jay just a quick look at the US Census report . SD CO has 2,941,000 vs, 993,000 for SF and Marin Co. Maybe you are counting Oakland, but SD CO is not counting 3,000,000 in OC. Isn’t SD the 2nd most populated city in the most populated state?
March 19, 2008 at 9:47 pm
RE 42: The SD Co equivalent in the bay area would be SF, Marin, Alameda, San Mateo and Contra Costa counties. Really should give credit for Santa Clara as well if you are talking TV market.
March 19, 2008 at 10:29 pm
42. OC belongs to LA. We get NO SD programming here and ALL LA programming. It makes more sense to add Oakland to SF that OC to SD.
March 19, 2008 at 10:32 pm
42 … malcolm, are you suggesting that the team should change its name to “Los Angeles Padres of San Diego”? EEEK!
42 … Santa Clara county should certainly be counted as part of the Giants population area … but I think what jay did was lump the whole SF Bay Area into 1 “population” and then report Giants + A’s attendance together … which I think is fair/right … and nothing at all like thinking of OC as part of SD …
OT … an interesting look behind the scenes at one of the Mitchell Report “informants” … http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/ne.....;type=lgns … I’m not sure I realized that Jack Cust was named in the Mitchell Report … it’s odd how “spin” impacts perception … based on what I read in that story, I appreciate Bigbie’s response to his steriod & HGH use …
March 20, 2008 at 1:53 am
42: Yes san diego, the city, is highly populated, but the san diego metro area is actually fairly small. Thanks to pendelton to the north and the desert to the east the county is isolated. (I actually like this about SD county vs where I grew up in the OC)
LA and the Bay area spread out over a much larger (and more densely populated) area making the media market much larger. For more info see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.....itan_areas
Actually if it weren’t so difficult to cross the border the best way to expand our metro area would be to the south.
March 20, 2008 at 8:01 am
Not to further the issue that I broached yesterday, but it sure seems like MLB never promised the stipend to the coaches and trainers. AND, the Padres did not receive such a thing for going to China. As I stipulated yesterday, I still have no sympathy for them: http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....notes.html
March 20, 2008 at 8:07 am
#47: Yep, we picked up on that.
March 20, 2008 at 8:17 am
47: “Sure seems?” That’s some serious reading in going on there. It doesn’t say ANYTHING about what MLB promised. Every other story that went into depth said that the players believed coaches and staff WERE to be compensated. A sampling:
“The players had believed since October that the coaches would be compensated, PER THEIR INSTRUCTIONS IN A CONFERENCE CALL (emphasis mine) mapping out the trip’s logistics. Somewhere in the intervening five months, the line of communication broke down, and only the players for both the Red Sox and A’s were earmarked for compensation.”
“Red Sox third baseman Mike Lowell said the players WERE TOLD (emphasis mine) during the offseason that coaches and staff would be paid for the trip to Japan. He said the players didn’t find out otherwise until yesterday morning.”
And to get back to your points from yesterday, this is exactly the opposite of prima donna behavior. They’re not agitating for money for themselves. They were willing to GIVE UP some of their own money.
March 20, 2008 at 8:17 am
48: I just wanted something that looked a little more rational in my defense.
This whole situation just makes me more proud to be a Padres fan. I love Heath Bell’s reaction when asked about the stipend.
March 20, 2008 at 8:19 am
49: I was going off what the UT article said. Why on earth would they paint the picture they way they did?
I also apparently missed the bit about the players giving the coaches their stipend. Boycotting the trip IS NOT giving the coaches money. Giving the coaches money consists of the team splitting up the 30 stipends for 40 people. Did anyone float THAT idea?
March 20, 2008 at 8:26 am
This SI.com article also emphasizes that MLB was going to pay the coaches, just not the same amount that the MLBPA had negotiated.
I seriously feel like this is a case of the World Champions using their leverage to get their way. The Padres never bitched and whined about getting extra pay to go to China. I’m glad that Lucchino said the team would make up the difference. But if all of these players were so concerned about their coaches, they could have made up the damn difference themselves.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c.....index.html
March 20, 2008 at 8:29 am
51: How a SD newspaper chooses to write a story about the Padres has no bearing on the facts of the Red Sox case. Seriously, there’s nothing in that UT story about what MLB promised the players. Absence doesn’t prove anything. There’s nothing in the paper today about Rachel McAdams turning down my offer of a full-body massage. Guess I should hop a flight to LA with a bottle of scented oil.
Boycotting the trip in order to get the coaches and training staff the money the players believed they had been promised is EXACTLY how you get those people the money. It’s the leverage the players had. Why should they just roll over and give up the money they’d been promised without first trying to get MLB to honor its commitments, or the commitments that the players believed, in good faith, MLB had made?
March 20, 2008 at 8:30 am
#52: If MLB wasn’t going to pay the coaches the amount the MLBPA had negotiated, then why is it the players’ responsibility to cover MLB?
Sorry, I don’t see your point at all.
March 20, 2008 at 8:32 am
52: And what MLB said recently was different than what the players believed MLB had promised months ago.
The Padres played an exhibition series, not a regular season game. And if they didn’t want to ask for extra money, it’s not a precedent. Other teams that have played regular season games in Japan have been paid more than the normal per-diem.
March 20, 2008 at 8:34 am
54: Because, as others had pointed out yesterday, the MLBPA DOES NOT include the players. According to that SI.com article (which, granted, may not be the complete story), only the players were guaranteed $40 K. The coaches were guaranteed $20 K by MLB separately and were going to get that. If the players really were worried about that extra $20 K, they could have split up their stipends to cover the difference.
My larger point is this: Nobody heard about the A’s boycotting until today. And if the A’s had done this, the media would have sunned them and told them to stop grandstanding. But because it’s all-mighty and powerful World Champions, everyone falls all over themselves trying to get the money quote from Mike Lowell. It’s disgusting and pathetic.
March 20, 2008 at 8:34 am
52: This is also from the Union-Tribune article you point to:
“Yesterday an official of the Major League Baseball Players Association notified a Padres official that the players who traveled to China could expect a small stipend.”
Seems like MLBPA is trying to do a makeup call for the Padres, which only hurts your case.
March 20, 2008 at 8:37 am
54: I can’t see why this is hard, either.
a. You promise me and my buddy 5 dollars each if we wash your car.
b. Just before we start work, you say that you’re only going to pay my buddy 1 dollar.
c. I say I’m not washing your car until you pay both of us what you said you’d pay.
The dollar amounts don’t matter. The agreement matters. The only difference is, the guy who wants his car washed could pick hundreds of replacements. The Red Sox (and the A’s, who considered a boycott too, and who are clearly not the World Champions) had the leverage to make it stick.
March 20, 2008 at 8:38 am
56: How is it the players responsibility to give their money to their coaches? Standing up for their coaches is much more stand-up.
Rich people could give all their money to homeless people, but that’s not the way it works …
March 20, 2008 at 8:40 am
56: To that whole post, I say….What?
The MLBPA is the player’s union. I assume you meant coaches.
The players believed that MLB had promised to pay the coaches (and staff) 40,000, not 20,000, when the deal was negotiated. MLB’s willingness to pay 20K is immaterial, if they had promised more than that earlier.
Of course the media picked up on the Red Sox first, there’s 200 reporters covering Red Sox spring training. There’s maybe 5 guys hanging around A’s camp with press credentials.
As for the media shunning the A’s, that’s a huge leap on your part.
March 20, 2008 at 8:40 am
58: As I said, according to the SI.com article, there was no such agreement in place to pay the coaches and players equally. Given your example, it would be like me telling I’d pay you $5 to wash my car (since you’re the talented guy) and I’d pay your supervisor $2.50 to make sure you do it right. Then, on the day you’re supposed to wash my car, you decide that your supervisor should get paid what you do because it’s not fair.
How is that my problem?
57: How does retroactively paying the Padres, after this story broke all over the media, hurt my case? It seems that MLB is trying to make themselves not seem cheap, since that’s exactly what the Red Sox insinuated yesterday. It’s the same reason why big corporations settle out of court. You take a monetary hit to avoid the larger issue.
March 20, 2008 at 8:43 am
60: Do you honestly think this story would have gotten anywhere near the same level of attention if the A’s had made this decision? Do you think this would even be discussed on a Padres blog otherwise?
Based on what I’ve read, which appears to be different from what others have read, the MLBPA negotiated a $40K stipend for the players and MLB negotiated a $20K stipend for the coaches. Then, the day the players are supposed to leave for Japan, they decide that this isn’t fair. If they were so concerned about the monetary well-being of their coaches, why didn’t they split up their stipends to cover the difference. They certainly could have afforded it, no?
March 20, 2008 at 8:45 am
61: You still appear to be misreading that article. Nowhere does it say that there was an agreement to pay them unequally BEFORE. The players, by multiple accounts, believed that the agreement was to pay them equally.
As part of the negotiations yesterday, MLB agreed to pay them 20,000 out of management proceeds. YESTERDAY is when MLB said “We’ll pay 20K.” Five months ago the players heard “We’ll pay 40K.”
MLB deciding to pay the coaches 20,000 each yesterday is not at all the same thing as MLB having agreed to pay them 20,000 five months ago, the players going along with it, and then the players changing their minds.
March 20, 2008 at 8:46 am
This really all comes down to which articles and sources of information you read first and choose to believe. I had never seen the Mike Lowell quote until today. Why would SI.com publish an article indicating an agreement different then that published by news sources yesterday?
March 20, 2008 at 8:47 am
61: We don’t really know their intentions, do we? We do know they are giving the Padres some money. Again, the Padres played exhibitions, where they didn’t take many of their best players. The Red Sox are playing regular season games.
The Trib article certainly doesn’t help your case. It points out that the Padres didn’t receive a stipend. That’s all it does. Well, maybe that isn’t right. How does the Padres not receiving a stipend mean the Red Sox shouldn’t either? Maybe the Red Sox should.
March 20, 2008 at 8:48 am
60: Not the same level of attention, but the media wouldn’t turn their backs on the A’s and tell them to stop grand-standing, either.
That’s the problem right there. The 20K for the coaches was negotiated YESTERDAY. The coaches and staff were going to get jack squat as of Tuesday morning, probably just their normal per-diem. I don’t know where you’re reading that the agreement was 40/20 forever. That’s nowhere that I can find. The statements from the players are that they believed all along it was going to be 40/40, they found out it was going to be 40/x, and they called BS on it.
March 20, 2008 at 8:49 am
63: So just because the article doesn’t explicitly state that this agreement hasn’t been in place, I have to assume it wasn’t? How the hell does that make any sense? Wouldn’t SI have articulated that this was something the league just agreed to yesterday if this was the case?
I don’t see the way I’m reading this is wrong. I’m reading the words that are on the page and making the logical leaps inlcuded therein. If the league had just agreed to this yesterday, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE ARTICLE. It wasn’t. But somehow because that wasn’t explicitly stated, it’s my fault for not getting that?
March 20, 2008 at 8:50 am
64: No, it doesn’t. I don’t believe your sources are saying what you think they are saying.
The “agreement” being referenced in that SI article refers to the agreement reached yesterday to settle the dispute, not the original negotiations between MLB and the players.
March 20, 2008 at 8:54 am
67: Do you believe that SI is infallible? Why not read more than once source? Maybe the reporter is not that great. Maybe another source got the the essence of the story better. Why just look for an article that supports your case?
Why do you keep saying the players should have made up the difference? Should I just go and throw my money at people who have been wrong?
March 20, 2008 at 8:55 am
These are the portions of the article that are relevant to the discussion: “Major League Baseball agreed to pay the managers, coaches and trainers on the trip $20,000 each from management’s proceeds, a person familiar with the agreement said, speaking on condition of anonymity because details weren’t announced. The Red Sox agreed to make up the difference to make the amount equal, and to pay some of the other team personnel making the trip, the person said.
“It was a misunderstanding of what agreement was reached between MLB and the MLBPA,” Red Sox president Larry Lucchino said. “We said we would step up and make sure a second pool was created and would seek contributions from all parties.”"
“Managers and coaches were included in the players’ pool payments for baseball’s two previous season-opening trips to Japan, when the New York Mets played the Chicago Cubs in 2000 and the Yankees played Tampa Bay in 2004. But this time, the agreement between MLB and the players’ association called only for payments to 30 players on each club, and left out the coaches.”
The deal MLB negotiated with MLBPA only covered the players. MLB reached a separate deal with the coaches. There is no inidcation of when this occurred.
March 20, 2008 at 8:57 am
69: I don’t believe they’re infallible, but I don’t believe that the players fully understood what was going on either. They hear “You guys are getting paid $40K.” They make their assumptions that this includes everyone and not just them. This may or may not be the case.
As for why the players should make up the difference, they are the ones claiming that there is some grave injustice occurring here. If they were really that cocerned about the well-being of their coaches, they should have made up the difference. Just because they don’t like the deal that was made isn’t MLB’s fault.
March 20, 2008 at 9:00 am
I’m not trying to be unreasonable here, but I really don’t see how my interpretation of what’s being presented in the articles is completely off-base. It seems that there was a general misunderstanding between the payers, coaches, and MLB. It seems that there were separate deals negotiated and that unlike past trips, the MLBPA-negotiated deal only included the players.
People may disagree about whether or not the players should make up the difference. That’s perfectly debatable. I think if they were upset enough to wreck an important trip for baseball, they could have paid the difference themselves. I think it’s kind of weak for them to be making huge character assassinations in the media when this very well could have been a misunderstanding.
March 20, 2008 at 9:05 am
67: There are multiple stories stating that the agreement reached yesterday is different from what the players believed they had agreed to originally, months ago.
It’s in the SI article, anyway. Here:
“A couple of hours later, all was resolved….Major League Baseball agreed to pay the managers, coaches and trainers on the trip $20,000 each from management’s proceeds, a person familiar with the agreement said, speaking on condition of anonymity because details weren’t announced.”
That’s clearly talking about the agreement reached yesterday.
March 20, 2008 at 9:09 am
70: Those are exactly the parts of the article that are relevant. But the agreement to pay the coaches 20,000 was reached YESTERDAY.
The deal that was negotiated to pay 30 players still doesn’t cover what the players, in good faith, believed that MLB had promised the coaches. As you yourself stated, the MLBPA cannot negotiate for the coaches. They can’t, they don’t represent the coaches. So that agreement between the union and MLB doesn’t render the player’s point moot.
72: Huge character assassinations? When did that happen? Seriously, when you write stuff like that, you come off like you’ve got an ax to grind in each hand and a stockpile of dull axes
March 20, 2008 at 9:09 am
73: I’d just like to point out that the quote you cited did not appear in the article like that. It appeared like this:
A couple of hours later, all was resolved, and the Red Sox took the field one hour late for a 4-3 loss to Toronto before a crowd of 7,868.
Across the country in Phoenix, Athletics players also considered a boycott. They didn’t take batting practice and held five team meetings before following Boston’s lead and deciding to play. An Oakland split squad lost 6-1 to the Los Angeles Angels in front of 7,940 fans before leaving for Tokyo.
“The players just stepped up and they did what I think was right,” Boston bench coach Brad Mills said.
Major League Baseball agreed to pay the managers, coaches and trainers on the trip $20,000 each from management’s proceeds, a person familiar with the agreement said, speaking on condition of anonymity because details weren’t announced. The Red Sox agreed to make up the difference to make the amount equal, and to pay some of the other team personnel making the trip, the person said.”
“A couple hours later, it was all resolved” is not immediately followed by the deal. The deal isn’t mentioned for several paragraphs. I really am struggling to understand how my comprehension of this article is way off. If the paragraph was printed as you suggested, then I could totally see that I’m completely misinterpreting this. But it’s not printed that way. It’s not even close.
March 20, 2008 at 9:12 am
74: Where did I get “huge character assisnation”? How about when the article was listed in the headline at CNN? Again, this story would have never got this sort of play without the Red Sox.
The Red Sox boycotted. Reporters asked them why. The players gave their side of the story. Reporters printed it wihtout bothering to check with MLB. A normal person then logs onto a media source, reads the story that only quotes players, and assumes that this is the truth. In reality, this might well be only one side of the story. But since the other party wasn’t consulted, this side of the story gets endlessly repeated as fact. That’s character assassination.
March 20, 2008 at 9:12 am
76: And it’s bad journalism.
March 20, 2008 at 9:22 am
75: Oh, I don’t doubt that you’re struggling.
Of course that’s not an exact quote, there’s a lot of detail in between. That’s why the ellipses in the middle. That’s what ellipses mean. It means something was cut out because it’s irrelevant.
But that’s the flow of the facts. There’s absolutely NOTHING in the intervening text that suggests there were was an earlier agreement to pay the coaches 20K. You point to one single thing in the text represented by my ellipses that suggests there was an earlier agreement to pay them 20K and the players tried to change the terms. Let’s look in detail:
“and the Red Sox took the field one hour late for a 4-3 loss to Toronto before a crowd of 7,868.”
Nope.
“Across the country in Phoenix, Athletics players also considered a boycott. ”
Nope.
“They didn’t take batting practice and held five team meetings before following Boston’s lead and deciding to play.”
Nope.
“An Oakland split squad lost 6-1 to the Los Angeles Angels in front of 7,940 fans before leaving for Tokyo.”
Nope.
“‘The players just stepped up and they did what I think was right,” Boston bench coach Brad Mills said.”
Nope.
76: Character assassination is impugning a person’s character. When did they do that? Did they call Bud Selig or Bob DuPuy a bad name? Even accuse him of being a cheat? I haven’t seen a story like that. I’ve seen stories where the players said “This isn’t what we were told would happen.” If that’s assassination, there would be a lot more dead characters around. Maybe I missed some stories.