San Francisco Giants fans have spoken, and probably the nicest thing they had to say about me is that I’m an idiot.
Disagreeing vehemently with a recent column in which I questioned the integrity of the Giants and other teams, they responded with what was probably the largest outpouring of e-mail of any of the 250 columns I have written for this Web site in the two years of its existence.
The closest in e-mail volume to this response followed a column about the woeful Pittsburgh Pirates. In that instance, the response was literally 50-50; half of the readers agreed with my critical view of the Pirates while the other half supported the Pirates’ way of trying to improve the team.
This time the response overwhelmingly supported the Giants generally and their treatment of Buster Posey particularly. I used Posey as Exhibit A in the case against the way the clubs manipulated players’ major league service time, which determines eligibility for salary arbitration and free agency.
By leaving Posey in the minors until May 29 instead of bringing him up by May 18, the Giants insured that they would have him for seven years instead of six before he could become a free agent. His eligibility for salary arbitration wasn’t affected because he spent the last 33 days of last season with the Giants.
The column was headed “Integrity strikes out,” suggesting that teams that didn’t use their best players were undermining the integrity of the game. Some readers didn’t get that point. But even if they understood what I was saying, they didn’t care. They liked the Giants being able to retain Posey for an extra year.
And apparently they liked it even if the absence of Posey’s bat in the first 47 games meant fewer victories. It’s easy for them to say we don’t know what Posey might have done if he had been recalled earlier, or maybe he needed those two months in the minors to be able to do what he has done for the Giants.
But the way Posey has hit in his two months with the Giants (.342 batting average, .388 on-base, .521 slugging through Friday) I have to believe that he would have hit at that or close to that productive level a few weeks earlier.
I don’t mind being criticized by Giants’ fans; I expected it when I questioned their team’s motive with Posey. Fans are passionate and defend their heroes passionately.
What I find curious about their reaction, though, is what I think is their misguided view. They are looking at the big picture when they should be more narrowed in their focus.
Vern, for example, wrote, “I would rather see him for an additional year than a few weeks early in this season….I don’t believe the Giants actions in this matter will have any impact on how they finish.”
Joe A. Colombo took a similar view, writing, “So in the long run I believe Sabean by holding him back has given the Giants a better chance of being successful over the next few years because in effect they get to hold on to Posey for one more year before they lose him to either the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, and God forbid the Dodgers.”
By taking that stance, however, the fans are saying they care more about what happens in 2016, which will be Posey’s seventh season, than this season.
That’s foolhardy because in 2016 the Giants could have a bad team and not be in position to contend for anything whereas this season they are in the thick of two races – the National League West and the wild card. A few more Posey hits might have contributed to a few more Giants victories, enhancing their standings in both of those races.
With the notable exception of Phillies general manager Ruben Amaro, who foolishly traded Cliff Lee, baseball people have come to recognize that the future is now.
Speaking of the e-mailing Giants fans, the general manager of another team said, “They don’t realize that teams get so few opportunities to win that when they have an opportunity they have to take advantage of it.”
Many of the e-mailers were too hung up on their feelings about players’ salaries to recognize that reality.
“So the players are hurt by a delayed call up because it delays their accrual of service time for salary arbitration and free agency?” Jeff Cox of Indianapolis wrote. “Cry me a river. I’ll pull out my Stradivarius.
“It is the players, through their union, who have made arbitration and free agency so painful for the vast majority of ball clubs. It is the players, through their union, who have turned most baseball teams into de facto farm clubs for the Yankees and Red Sox. It is the players, through their union, who have prevented meaningful revenue sharing or a salary cap that would restore competitive balance.
“At this point, having watched my two favorite baseball teams (Cleveland Indians and Pittsburgh Pirates) be destroyed by free agency, used with malice by the players union, I see hurting the players as not a bug, but a feature.”
What I get from that comment: better to hurt the players than help their team win.
Another comment based on players’ salaries: “I don’t think the fans are as upset as you think when their team finds ways to limit what these guys get paid. After all, we want our team to win every year, not just this year.”
But the point the fans miss is they have no guarantee the Giants will win any year. That’s why, as the general manager said, they have to take advantage of any opportunity.
Stephen Ross, a law professor and director of the Penn State Institute for Sports Law, Policy and Research, offered this view:
“The reason why this makes economic sense for these teams is that the probability that they will narrowly lose is low so, when compared to the certainty of losing the player a year early, they hold them back.
“The solution is to make the risk too great. That requires the media to go back to those teams who narrowly lost and excoriate them for, in hindsight, a terrible decision (whether or not it was in bad faith). If the Giants lose out by a few games, this was a really bad move. Then Brian Sabean can choose whether the public thinks he is a sleazebag or an idiot.”
Robert Warshaw, also a lawyer, wrote, “I think you should also consider that the goal of putting the best team on the field is valid both in the present and the future.
“Arguably, teams that delay the call up and avoid giving the player a full year of service save substantial money down the line that can be put back into the payroll for an even better team later.
“Arguably, not paying attention to the call up date and the consequence of an earlier call up, would needlessly cost a team money and negatively affect its options to build a better team in the future.”
Mark Torelli of Los Angeles wrote, “I think your argument in this piece is quite misdirected.”
Acknowledging the clubs’ manipulation of service time, he added, “Is it silly that the way the system is set up leads to major league quality players destroying AAA for 6 weeks every spring? Yes, it’s silly. The system is silly. So argue against that. Argue that the next CBA needs to figure out a way to change the incentives so that a team should want its best players on the field. But to accuse people of a lack of integrity for acting intelligently and legally towards their own best interests is also silly, and I’m afraid naive.”
Glenn Heberle raised this issue: “I suppose you have no integrity concerns about an economic system where some teams can have a $200M+ payroll but others are limited to less than one quarter of that.”
That issue, however, is not a matter of integrity but reality. Teams play in different-sized markets, always have, always will.
“Give me a break,” Heberle concluded. “Typical NYC-centric thinking.”
Some readers were even more blunt:
“I think you need to get off your moral high ground, this article comes off as pretentious and pompous,” wrote Garrett Lonergan.
Jon Wong wrote, “This article was crap. Money is part of the game.”
From Doug Rose: “You are not a coach in the Giants organization nor have you followed Posey’s defensive abilities as intently as these coaches over the last year. Therefore all your opinions about the team’s lack of integrity stem from speculation rather than knowledge. Your writing lacks integrity and you are an idiot.”
Bill Dinsmore wrote, “Dude, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. These young players need time in the minors.”
What he ignores is that many of those young players need the same amount of time in the minors, all being recalled in late May and early June. Quite a coincidence.
“More importantly,” Dinsmore added, “there should be revenue sharing before the Royals, Pirates and the like go belly-up.”
Note to Mr. Dinsmore: revenue sharing has existed for more than a decade, and the two teams he mentioned have been suspected of pocketing their proceeds from revenue sharing instead of spending the money to improve their teams.
I must admit; not all of the responses were negative.
“Well said,” T.J. McCallum wrote. “It’s overdue to represent the fans in this perspective. Unfortunately, nearly all baseball people know about the delayed arbitration date and accept it as a natural part of the process. No one seems to win in this scenario.
“The players lose potential MLB career playing time and financially, the owners likely lose revenue and interest (especially television) and the fans have to wait to have their best club on the field. I think this current setup will change in the next bargaining agreement.”
And Frank Tutalo offered this view:
“Great column that strikes a nerve I’ve been sensitive to for a while, Murray. There are so many players every year that fit into this mold, and maybe it’s about time the clubs have their noses rubbed in it so they can see it’s more than circumstantial evidence that supports this view. It seems like every season, there are a handful of budding prospects (top tier ones at that) who fit this definition. And we see the game played again and again.
“In the big picture, wouldn’t it behoove the clubs to sell more tickets and market these young stars more as they play them earlier in the season, or God forbid, from the start? Realize it doesn’t follow suit exactly, but the Nats RE: Strasburg have never seen so many bodies in seats, I’m guessing, even dating back to when the Splendid Splinter was manager.
“But now that Barry isn’t in town anymore in San Fran, I guess that doesn’t matter anymore to Sabean.”
OVER THE WALL WITH THE BALL
Rick Porcello, who last year had an impressive rookie season for Detroit last year, has had a difficult season this year. He was even sent to the minors for a spell. But he’s back with the Tigers, and last week he did something that other pitchers had not been able to do in 809 at-bats.
He threw a pitch that Juan Pierre slugged for a home run.
Pierre, now a Chicago White Sox outfielder, had not hit a home run since Sept. 15, 2008.
Now that Pierre has homered, he is out of contention for having the most at-bats this season without hitting a home run. The new leader is Nyjer Morgan of Washington with 394 at-bats, and he is followed by Jason Kendall of Kansas City with 369.
HIT ROOF, WIN GAME
I was reminded recently about a game my two sons used to play in the basement of our house. It was their own variation of ping pong, or table tennis, if you prefer.
Not satisfied with the normal game, they created an additional strategic element. They would hit the ball off the wall, and if it landed on the correct half of the table, it was in play.
I was reminded of their game as I watched the Tampa Bay Rays lose a game to the Minnesota Twins last week at Tropicana Field. A ninth-inning pop up that was about to be caught deflected off the catwalk just under the stadium roof and fell to the ground uncaught.
A 6-6 tie became an 8-6 Twins’ victory, an outcome that could have a bearing on three American League races – East, Central and wild card.
If any of those races end in a tie, I could invite the teams to my house and they could decide the winner in my basement.