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!
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?
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.com/2008/baseball/mlb/specials/spring_training/2008/03/19/redsox.boycott.ap/index.html
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?
#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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 …
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
76: And it’s bad journalism.
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.
78: Look, I understand the ellipses. I would really appreciate it if you didn’t have to assault my intellect just because we disagree. Based on the way that article is presented, a person could easily interpret it one of two ways. If the deal had been arranged only yesterday, I would think it would be more explicitly stated. The other quote that gives me pause about whether or not the agreement was reached yesterday is Lucchino’s quote:
“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.—
And, unfortunately, most articles that inlcuded the Red Sox’s initial reactions have all been changed to reflect the fact that their boycotting is finished. I do not explicitly remember what was said yesterday, but I thought I had read (and again, since apparently I can’t comprehend things) some pretty inflammatory things from one side to the other.
I’m totally willing to admit I’m wrong if someone can show me an article that says the agreement was just met yesterday. Given what I have read, I don’t feel that I am wrong in the way I’ve interpreted this.
79: If you understood what ellipses were, why the overreaction? There’s absolutely nothing that got cut that has anything to do with the agreement, but you acted like I was hiding something, like the information cut was somehow germane to whether the agreement being talked about was reached months ago or yesterday.
If 99% of people are interpreting the article one way, it ain’t that easy to interpret the other way. You gotta be trying.
Here’s another story that explicitly says an agreement was reached yesterday.
http://www.projo.com/redsox/content/projo_20080319_japan.5f3f1b9.html
80, 81: And another one:
http://tinyurl.com/394ekt
Here’s an excerpt:
“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.”
The Red Sox sure as heck didn’t agree to “make up the difference” 5 months ago. 5 months ago they didn’t know there was a difference to be made up. They’re talking about the deal that was reached yesterday.
81: You’re right, it says an agreement was reached yesterday. It doesn’t say what the agreement was. This could be me splitting hairs, but I still think this whole thing was blown out of context by both the players and the media. There’s no mention of what the “agreement” was. It could have been the players being told that the coaches weren’t getting paid what they were and that they misunderstood. It could have been MLB just then agreeing to pay the coaches something. We don’t know.
Regardless, I’ll say I was wrong.
83: Not to keep going at you, but it says what the agreement was.
$20,000 each from management’s proceeds, with the Red Sox making up the difference and paying some of the other team personnel making the trip.