6-4-2 — an Angels/Dodgers double play blog

So, Josh Hamilton said things:

Josh Hamilton took strong exception to Angels owner Arte Moreno’s comments suggesting that Hamilton lacked "accountability" by suffering a substance-abuse relapse that ultimately led to the troubled outfielder getting traded to the Texas Rangers on Monday.

“I have no clue what he’s talking about,” Hamilton said during a news  conference at Globe Life Park in Texas, his first comments since he reported his relapse to Major League Baseball in early February. “I showed up every day and played hard when I was there. I hadn’t been the player they wanted me to be, I know I haven’t been, but I worked my butt off this winter to be that player.

“They just didn’t want that to happen for some reason. It doesn’t hurt my feelings or make me mad, but I prepared. [Moreno] knew what the deal was when he signed me. Hands down, he knew what he was getting. He knew what the risks were. He knew all those things. Under the [joint drug agreement], it is what it is.”

Those defending Josh Hamilton as a product of addiction have a certain limited point about the nature of that disease and the risks therewith; but "he knew what he was getting" sounds disturbingly like an excuse. In the end, character matters. Josh Hamilton did not have it, but he will have a very large fraction of the remainder of $83 million, paid by the Angels. Having recently gone through it with someone who is a genuine addict myself — and shockingly, with a friend who came disturbingly close to enabling behavior — I cannot help but see this as smirking arrogance. As Mat Gleason wrote,

Josh, when you finally die of a drug related matter it won't be Arte Moreno's fault. It won't be the fault of the good fans in Anaheim who figured out your little game. They might have Donnie Moore's karma on them but they won't have yours. As much as I would like to say the blame for your future fate lies with the enabling national media and coddling players union, I think of Steve Howe's face crushed against his truck's windshield on a lonely interstate highway with crystal meth in his bloodstream and I know that all the blame will be on you, all of it, as it was with Howe. I can only hope that when you do yourself in, which you will, that, mercifully like Howe, you take nobody else with you.

Amen.

Update 4/28: It appears I am in the minority in endorsing the Rev's words above, because they have since been taken down.  The vituperation against it on Twitter seems to be pretty close to unanimous, if my feed is any indication. I have known Mat for a number of  years now, and hyperbolic, tendentious opinion is his schtick (viz. his reaction to the news that Hamilton wouldn't appear at spring training), but it has not always been thus; once upon a time he offered a much more conciliatory tone, writing:

Perhaps this is just an issue with his surgery, many fans would be relieved by some drug test going wrong because of modern medicine. The benefit of the doubt should go to the man, a suffering human being deserving of our compassion. But the likelihood that he used and is owning up to it seems to be the razor truth of the matter.

Say a prayer for Josh Hamilton, the man. We can determine what this means for the team at another time. For now, be thankful your demons are not dragging you into a goldfish-bowl-shaped hell.

In the end, I suspect Mat's own personal wrestling with the demons of addiction informed his more recent rant. Temperance of any kind isn't easy to achieve with consistency.

Labels: angels, buh bye, drugs, scumbags

During civil proceedings against the two men who beat Bryan Stow (all emboldening mine):

"You're saying to the jury, 'They (the Stow family) are saying we're 100 percent liable. But does that mean (Marvin) Norwood and (Louis) Sanchez, who beat this guy up, have no liability? And, does it mean Mr. Stow himself has no liability?'"

...

"I've been doing these cases for 23 years and I have never seen one yet in which it didn't take at least two people to tango," he said, referring to the notion that jurors could decide Stow bears some liability in the attack. "So stay tuned and stand by."

Labels: bryan stow, dodgers, mccourts, scumbags

A state appellate court upheld an earlier verdict that the Angels did not discriminate against men when the club issued a Mother's Day tote bag giveaway at the park. Hallelujah.

Labels: angels, scumbags

Looks like the Pirates and overall #2 pick Pedro Alvarez have come to an agreement after all. The deal, as reported in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, calls for a four-year major-league contract worth $6.355M.

But one source indicated that a signed contract between the Pirates and Alvarez likely will quash a related grievance filed by the union against commissioner Bud Selig's office, offering a sign that all concerned have been duly informed of this development.

It's unclear from the article whether Boras was involved in the final round of negotiations.

Labels: draft, pirates, scott boras, scumbags

No, Thank You, We Don't Want The Division Either: Nationals 5, Dodgers 4

Three home runs and the Dodgers still can't carve out a win from the floppiest quadruple-A team in the National League. 1-for-11 with runners in scoring position (worst offenders: Matt Kemp and Nomar), ten left on base, and the team's eighth straight road loss. Jonathan Broxton looked good in the seventh — but, wait, that's not the trouble inning, is it?

Greg Maddux took the loss, his second in a Dodgers uniform this year, though he wasn't especially bad. Two of the runs scored against were unearned thanks to his own fielding error; signs of the Apocalypse, or just another lost season, take your pick.

Yahoo box • Dodgers.com recap

Arrgh: A's 6, Angels 5

Joe Saunders had nothing and injured his pitching hand (in a fielding incident during the game? I didn't hear that part), the Angels offense tried but couldn't convert with runners in scoring position ... where have I heard that before?

As if that weren't enough, Howie Kendrick left the game early with a tight hamstring, and Erick Aybar was seen during the telecast grabbing his hamstring during the game. Update: He, too, is apparently day-to-day with a sore hamstring. Juan Rivera played second base for the first time in his major league career, and if his B-Ref minor league page is to be believed, his professional career, too.

It was the Angels' third series loss of their last four. Enough with the damn sleepwalking already.

Yahoo box • Angels recap

Eliminated: Twins 6, Mariners 5

At least the Mariners were eliminated from the division race. The Twins rallied back from a 4-3 deficit in the top of the eighth to make it 6-4, with scoring capped by Brian Buscher's RBI single that plated two. As I projected yesterday, the Mariners are the first team eliminated in any division — in fact, in any race —

Yahoo box

Angels Option Bulger, Call Up Reggie Willits

The Angels optioned Jason Bulger to AAA Salt Lake and called up Reggie Willits prior to today's game.

Scott Boras Replies To The Pirates

Relevant to Scott Boras's bizarre negotiation stance with regards to the contract of Pedro Alvarez (and perhaps another Boras client, Eric Hosmer) comes Boras' not-very-long-awaited response (via BTF):

Scott Boras phoned from California to give this quote: "The Pirates violated Major League Baseball rules and have issued a nearly 600-word statement, made their actions look to be my fault. I think it's time for the Pirates and Mr. Coonelly to come clean with the fans of Pittsburgh and let everyone know about their dealings with Mr. Alvarez."

Rob Neyer ($) adds more to the "Boras is looking to enforce his negotiating leverage" angle:

You see where this leads, right? If Boras didn't get his client a single extra dollar, why bother? With another agent, you might get the same money without Boras' baggage. At least that's what some top amateur players might be thinking next spring. With their August 15 deadline, MLB backed Boras into a corner. With their private negotiations with Alvarez, the Pirates poked Boras in the groin with a sharp stick. It's not surprising that he's trying to poke back.

Will it work? I don't have any idea. Boras doesn't seem to occupy the high ground, though. If Alvarez remains on the restricted list, he can't play for any MLB-affiliated team, or be drafted again next year. I suspect Boras is simply hoping to squeeze a few hundred thousand more dollars from the Pirates, which would make Alvarez the richest of the 2008 draft picks. Because barring a favorable court ruling, I don't see how this one has a happy ending for Boras and his client.

"[A]s far as I'm concerned," Neyer concludes, Boras' retirement "can't happen soon enough." Hear, hear.

Labels: angels, dodgers, draft, nationals, pirates, recaps, scumbags, transactions

I first heard about the Pirates placing first round draft pick Pedro Alvarez on the restricted list ($) this morning when I was listening to the Cubs/Pirates game on XM. (Also available via MLB.com, and in truncated form via AP.) The crux of the matter seems to be this: after Alvarez agreed (apparently verbally) to a $6M signing bonus, the contract was returned and approved by MLB after the 11:15 EDT deadline on August 15, according to the first-year player draft rules. There are several matters here for Scott Boras:

• This is not a loophole, though he would like it to appear so. At worst, what would happen is that Alvarez returns in the 2009 draft. Of course, if the deal actually was signed after the deadline, this raises the question, what good is a deadline is if it's not enforced?
• Boras does not want to be seen as being evadable. From the complete statement issued by the Bucs:

  "Regrettably, we are not surprised that Mr. Boras would attempt to raise a meritless legal claim in an effort to compel us to renegotiate Pedro's contract to one more to his liking. We are, however, disappointed that Pedro would allow his agent to pursue this claim on his behalf. Pedro showed tremendous fortitude and independent thinking when he agreed to his contract on August 15.

  Reading between the lines, the Pirates got around Boras, got Alvarez to agree to a deal, and then Boras found a loophole under which he could reopen negotiations. Only that opens the question:
• What is the time limit on the restricted list? If it's indefinite, Boras just got his client a professional death sentence. Edit: apparently it is indefinite.

Much more good commentary at the BTF thread on this subject.

Labels: draft, pirates, scott boras, scumbags

I was giving serious consideration to buying one of those star-spangled Angels hats that have been on display for Fourth of July weekend. As it turned out, I wasn't able to get one because the second deck team store was out of everything except for sizes 8 and 7 7/8 (much too big for my head), and there was no way I was going to enter the madhouse of the home plate store. (Forget the souvenir stands throughout the park — none of them had any, and they all told me to go to the main store.)

It turns out that it was just as well, because the hats were going for $35 (I assume they are the same price as the Mariners caps of the same provenance). But, they say, it's for a good cause: some fraction of that overpriced cap is going to charity, Welcome Back Veterans. The only problem, as U.S.S. Mariner relays, is that MLB can't be bothered to tell us just how much money will be going to that cause. Paul Lukas of Uniwatch went to the press conference announcing these babies, and boy did he get an earful:

All the materials related to this promotion say that “a portion of the proceeds” from the cap sales will go to the charity program [look at the last bullet point here, for example]. Can you tell us what percentage that portion is?

The reason I ask is that some fans — including many who have already expressed their opinions to me as news of this initiative leaked out over the weekend — may view this program as just another merchandising program to move product and generate revenue. So what portion of the cap proceeds will go to the charity? And if it’s not 100%, why not?

And man, you could practically hear them crossing my name off their Christmas card lists. MLB PR czar Rich Levin glared at me like I’d just hocked a loogie in his cappuccino or something. “The answer is that that hasn’t been determined yet,” he growled. “But this is a charity initiative — it isn’t about generating revenue.”

“I’m not suggesting otherwise,” I responded. “But there’s a certain level of cynicism out there among some fans, so I was giving you a chance to clarify…”

“We reject that,” he snapped. “We reject the cynicism.”

And that, my friends, was the end of that. No more questions, cue the photographers for glad-handing pics. Afterward, two gentlemen who were involved with the vets’ program (i.e., not MLB employees) approached me and said, “I thought it was a very good question, and I don’t think you got much of an answer.”

And there you have it.

Labels: scams, scumbags

So, Seth Smith strikes out on a high fastball by Jonathan Papelbon, the Red Sox win their second World Series in three years, and Joe Buck is whining that "the only downside" is that the Sox don't get to celebrate at home.

What a disappointing postseason. The Rocks only got into the game late, and then not enough. Another miserable sweep.

Yahoo box

Labels: postseason, recaps, red sox, rockies, scumbags

A judge understands the legal canard MLBAM is trying to pass through the courts? Imagine!

“So, now we have a limitation (referring to the use of associating a player to their statistics), and now I come around to, ‘This isn’t about statistics’ -- the basic war of the brief .

‘This is about names,” you say. ‘This is about statistics,’ they say.

And I understand the practicality of the war because the statistics are in the public domain. And it seems to me, it’s clearly a use of public information to figure out that if you’re going to have an ongoing fantasy sports league over the life of a real professional sports league – clearly a collateral market – you have to have an opening set of statistics and evolving statistics that will allow competition and trades and so forth.

And so where do you get those statistics?

Well you can’t take the 1923 Philadelphia Athletics because that doesn’t evolve over a season. So you take these statistics that are in the public domain.

And as I translate the argument in this case.. ‘Well, we won’t argue with that (referring to the use of statistics without player association), but don’t you dare put a name next to those statistics.’

Well, of course that’s ridiculous.

MLBAM is purely slime here, and there's no two ways about it. This is rent-seeking behavior at some of its lowest.

Labels: mlbam, scumbags