Cup of Coffee: February 19, 2024

Good morning!

Today we examine the latest evidence that Rob Manfred doesn’t like baseball. We also talk about the Sacramento Athletics, the White Sox wanting $1 billion, Ronald Acuña Jr. not really reading the room, some signings, a shift of position, and a game of “what . . . if?”

In Other Stuff: African political strife meets body-switch movies, an ancient and inscrutable symbol, despair Jordans and Trumped-up kicks.

 The Daily Briefing

Rob Manfred has no idea why people like baseball

I missed this before publication on Friday, but in the same press conference in which commissioner Rob Manfred announced that he’d be stepping down in 2029, someone asked him about the Oakland A’s situation. From Jake Mintz at Yahoo:

Lastly, Manfred’s comments about the Oakland A’s impending move to Las Vegas are sure to ruffle some feathers. When asked by Yahoo Sports how the league plans to maintain a presence in Oakland after the A’s leave town, Manfred pointed across the Bay.

“First of all, we do have a major-league team in the Bay Area,” he said. “It's not like there is not an available option. The Giants obviously still play there.”

Rob Manfred bristles whenever people suggest he doesn't like baseball and that he's hostile to fans. But then he drops shit like "hey, Oakland fans aren't losing baseball; the Giants are still in the Bay Area" and it's clear that the criticisms of him are vastly understated.

Manfred was a useful attack dog for MLB owners for years and he was rewarded for that with the commissioner job. But there's no evidence in existence which suggests that he likes the game beyond what money can be made from it, that he understands baseball’s status as an American cultural institution, or that he appreciates that people love and treasure baseball as a part of their lives and their communities. There is, however, massive amounts of evidence, such as these comments, that he doesn't give a shit about any of that.

You don't tell Oakland fans that it's all good that the A’s are leaving because, hey, the Giants are still in the region if you like and understand baseball and if you appreciate what it means to be a baseball fan. You only say that if you see baseball as nothing more than an assemblage of markets serving a small club of oligarchs who happen to hold your job in their hands.

It would still be annoying if Manfred had offered some faux empathy and disingenuous boilerplate about how hard John Fisher tried to keep the A’s in Oakland, but at least that would’ve suggested that he appreciates that Athletics fans have some feelings about all of this that should at least be considered. Not even bothering with that dance, however, is proof that what it means to be a baseball fan is either entirely lost on him or so that it’s unimportant that it’s not worth even mentioning in passing.

Either way, it shows you just how wrong Rob Manfred is for the job he’s held for the past nine years and how little baseball fans matter to those who run the sport.

Sacramento is the frontrunner to host the A’s from 2025-27

Sticking with Oakland, last week the word was that the Athletics were talking with Oakland/Alameda authorities about extending their lease for the Coliseum to cover 2025-27, which is when it is expected the new Las Vegas Stadium would be under construction. Now, via The Athletic, we learn that Sacramento is a more likely interim landing spot.

The upshot: John Fisher and Dave Kaval would prefer to stay in Oakland because it would allow them to keep their Bay Area TV deal. Oakland officials, however, are said to be over them and their crap after the messy process in which they decided to leave town last year. If they go to Sacramento they’d likely still be able to keep some portion of their deal, as NBC Bay Area broadcasts there. Going to either Salt Lake City or to Las Vegas’ Triple-A park would cause them to have to start from scratch. Which they’ll have to do in Las Vegas eventually, of course, but not immediately.

If they go to Sacramento they’d play in Sutter Health Park, which is home to the Giants’ Triple-A team, the River Cats. They’d have to negotiate with the Giants for that, but it could probably get done. It holds 14,000 people if you include outfield lawn being completely full. The Oakland Coliseum, then, would be completely empty.

All of which reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Milhouse’s parents get a divorce and his dad brags about having a race car bed while Homer says “I sleep in a big bed with my wife.”

The White Sox want $1 billion in public money for a new park

Justin Laurence of Crain's Chicago Business reports that White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf plans to ask the Illinois state government for roughly $1 billion in public money to fund the construction of a new Sox stadium in the South Loop.

According to the story Reinsdorf and real estate folks who would be involved in the development will make a pitch to the governor and lawmakers arguing that giving them $1 billion to build the stadium will pay off and then some by bringing in billions more in private investment and tax revenue in the surrounding area. Which anyone who has been reading this newsletter and the stuff I link to about stadium financing knows is an argument that has been so thoroughly debunked by academic study after academic study that anyone who offers it should be summarily atomic wedgied.

Honestly, though, I’m less worried about this latest invitation to enact horrible public policy than I am about our friend Professor J.C. Bradbury going off the goddamn deep end. Let’s check in on him:

Bradbury, of course, has published multiple peer-reviewed works debunking all of this public funding malarkey. Given how this business has been going lately, with stadium mishegoss going on in Chicago, Kansas City, Cleveland, Las Vegas, Northern Virginia, and elsewhere, however, it’s pretty clear no one in power is listening to him. I’d say it’s enough to make me wanna start calling Bradbury “Copernicus” but at least Copernican heliocentrism was embraced 150 years after the publication of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. I have zero faith that public officials and billionaire owners of sports teams will come around to the work of Bradbury and his colleagues in that sort of timeframe.

Ronald Acuña Jr. must not know what team he plays for

In April 2019 a then-21 year old Ronald Acuña Jr. signed an eight-year, $100 million contract. Like all deals signed by players with barely any service time there was risk involved. Yes, it set Acuña for life and provided insurance in case of a career-ending injury, but it also potentially left a lot of money on the table.

Acuña’s career since then has shown that, yeah, he left a lot of money on the table. He’s been one of the game’s best players over the past six seasons and last year he put up the best power/speed season ever, hitting 41 homers and stealing 73 bases. If he hadn’t signed that extension he’d be entering his walk year right now and would be assured of a $350-$400 million contract. Hell, maybe more. As it is, however, he’ll make $17 million a year from 2024-26 and the club holds $17 million options for 2027 and 2028. Which means that Acuña will be making only $85 million for his age 26-30 seasons, assuming the options get picked up.

On Friday Acuña told the press that, “It’s not a secret that I want to be a Brave for life. It’s my hope that we can make that happen soon.” Which is a diplomatic way of saying “I’m being massively underpaid for a player of my caliber, so I’d like to work out some deal where, sure, you can keep me forever, but I’ll be paid something far more approaching my value.”

I totally get that, but I can’t imagine Atlanta will be all that eager to revisit Acuña’s contract status. While it’s hard to knock many of the club’s decisions under Alex Anthopoulos on baseball merits, it’s also the case that the organization is entirely unsentimental when it comes to the team’s stars. They let popular players like Freddie Freeman and Dansby Swanson walk in free agency and they have aggressively pursued early lock-up deals for the express purpose of paying below market rates for elite talent. The club, like the players, has taken risks in this regard, but those risks have paid off and their ethos about this kind of thing is pretty clear.

Maybe they’ll prove me wrong, but I cannot imagine Atlanta deciding that paying an MVP-caliber player less than half his going rate for the remainder of his prime is something worth revisiting, even if it annoys said player and even if it means said player will go someplace else when he’s 30. It’s kinda their thing.

Phillies sign Whit Merrifield

The Phillies have signed super utilityman Whit Merrifield to a one-year deal. His salary in 2024 will be $7 million. There’s an option for 2025 for $8 million with a $1 million buyout. There are also some performance bonuses in there for flavor and spice.

Merrifield, 34, hit .272/.318/.382 (94 OPS+) with 11 homers and 26 stolen bases for the Blue Jays last year, making the All-Star team in the process. He has played every defensive position except catcher and short at some point in his career. Last year he started 67 games at second, 66 in left field, and four in right field. It’s been a couple of years since he’s seen time in center, so figure he’ll be a second baseman/corner outfielder for Philly.

The Giants sign Pablo Sandoval for some reason

2012 World Series hero Pablo Sandoval has signed a minor league contract with the San Francisco Giants.

Sandoval, 37, has not appeared in the bigs since 69 not-so-nice at bats for Atlanta in 2021. He has, however, had stints in the Mexican League and the Puerto Rican Winter League as well as taking some hacks in something called the Baseball United League in Dubai of all damn places. It’s pretty hard to figure that he has any chance to make the club out of spring training, but he came back from the seeming dead back in 2018 when he returned to the Giants for two years of bench bat work and occasional pitching performances in blowouts.

This time around Sandoval is presumably in camp to be a veteran presence and/or club ambassador and/or for a last hurrah or something. In this — if it is this — it’s not unlike how Sergio Romo signed on a Minor League deal last year for the specific purpose of pitching in a spring game and saying farewell.

Randal Grichuk signs with the Diamondbacks

Outfielder Randal Grichuk has signed with the Arizona Diamondbacks on a one-year deal. He’ll make $1.5 million this year. There’s a mutual option for $6 million with a $500,000 buyout and some performance bonuses.

Grichuk, 31, split time between the Rockies and the Angels last season, hitting .308/.365/.496 (120 OPS+) with eight home runs and 27 RBI in 64 games for the former but just .216/.264/.412 (80 OPS+) with eight homers and 17 RBI in 54 games for the latter.

Xander Bogaerts moves off short 

A little over a year ago the San Diego Padres signed Xander Bogaerts to an 11-year $280 million deal to be their shortstop. His time at shortstop for the Padres lasted exactly one season. The team is moving him to second base and is moving second baseman Ha-Seong Kim to short.

Bogaerts has not played a single inning at second base as a professional, but it’s pretty clear that Kim, who won a Gold Glove as a utilityman, plays a far superior shortstop. It’s also worth noting that Bogaerts is 31, which is usually around the time shortstops get moved off that position anyway. It makes a lot of baseball sense even if it makes one question the Padres’ decision to throw nine figures at Bogaerts last year.

What . . . if?

Subscriber Chris Webb wrote in on Friday with this:

Hi Craig - In the comments yesterday I called Don Gullett one of the great what-if players - entering his prime and already on a HOF track when he got hurt. Then there was some conversation. Folks brought up Mark Prior and Kerry Wood, an interesting case was made for Frank Tanana, I noted David Clyde, and also how Dick Allen might’ve been a slam dunk versus borderline Hall guy had he been treated better.

If you’re still doing the offseason “ask me anything” style pieces, who would be in your top 5 or 10 or one at each position for “what if” careers?

I’ll just off-the-top-of-my-head it, in no particular order:

• Eric Davis: I mentioned power/speed up in the Acuña item. Well, from 1986-90, Eric Davis averaged 30 home runs and 40 steals per season while playing Gold Glove defense for Cincinnati. He wasn’t ever my favorite player, but in those years he was my favorite player to watch, if that makes any sense. He looked like how people who saw Willie Mays in his prime had described him to me. He still played for 17 years, and had a couple of nice seasons in the 1990s, but injuries and illness turned an otherworldly superstar into a merely good journeyman player. I wish we had a chance to see that superstar for a few more seasons.
• J.R. Richard: Richard won 18 games for the Astros and led the league in both ERA and strikeouts in 1979. Indeed, it was his second straight year with over 300 Ks. In 1980 he was well on his way to another great season, going 10-4 with a 1.90 ERA heading into the All-Star break. Then he had a stroke and his career was over at the age of 30. Given that he didn’t have a ton of mileage on the odometer he could’ve pitched into the 1990s, you figure.
• Johan Santana: On the numbers alone he probably should be a Hall of Famer already, but we know how things go when you don’t get the counting numbers. I would’ve loved for his shoulder to have stayed intact and for him to actually have had a career after the age of 31.
• Albert Belle: a degenerative hip injury forced him into retirement after his age-33 season but he was still absolutely raking when it began catching up with him. Yes, he accomplished all kinds of great things before then, so it’s not a true “what if?” but it’d be amazing to watch the Hall of Fame voters — who, quite reasonably, believe Belle to be an asshole — grope for ways to not vote for him even if he had like 550 homers.

Then, of course, there are the many players who died during their careers. Roberto Clemente and Thurman Munson are probably the most notable, though I tend to think more of younger players who had not yet established themselves as stars like they had. Guys who still had a decade or more of play in front of them had they lived. Guys like Tyler Skaggs, Lyman Bostock, Yordano Ventura, Jose Fernandez, Oscar Taveras, and Nick Adenhart. All of them are some pretty big “what ifs.”

OK, great. Now I’m sad.

Other Stuff

Eswatini Drama

From the New York Times: “a 28-year-old college student in Eswatini wants to topple the nation’s monarchy. His father is a soldier sworn to protect the king.”

The story is pretty interesting inasmuch as it deals with the huge disconnect between Africa’s very young population and its aging class of rulers and elites who are completely out of touch with the needs and desires of the young. There are gonna be some serious revolutions in the next couple of decades, folks.

But honestly, I can’t shake how perfect that little tease of the article was up in the first paragraph. If they would change the father/son dichotomy which frames it into a boyfriend/girlfriend situation we’d be able to pitch this baby as a “multicultural update to ‘The Shop Around the Corner’/’You’ve got Mail.’” Or, hell, keep it Father/Son and you’ve got a readymade sci-fi/comedy body-switch movie.

Remember body-switch movies? Man there were a lot of those! More than you probably remember! How on Earth did so many of those pictures get greenlit? And why am I 100% sure that it was cocaine?

Unsolved Mysteries 

Also from the Times: As the climate of Patagonia shifted about 8,200 years ago, cave-dwellers in the region began painting ​a strange ​pattern on the walls. And despite the fact that human habitation in the area ended for a few thousand years, the design paintings resumed and spanned for several thousand more years after that.

Experts do not know the significance or provenance of the symbol. All they know is that it was ubiquitous in these difficult times and beyond. A seeming link of continuity among disparate peoples. The symbol, of course, was this:

OK, that’s not actually true. It was a comb-like symbol. But it’s also the case that no one really knows the origin of this S either, even if they think they do. No, it’s not for Stussy. Or Superman. Or some long-forgotten hair metal band. But I hope like hell that, 8,000 years from now, anthropologists find it and speculate on its no doubt deep and sacred meaning to our primitive culture.

Despair Jordans! Trumped-up kicks!

It has certainly been a few days for Mr. Trump. First a New York judge ordered that he pay around $450 million for fraud. Then, in an even worse development, he put out these goddamn kicks with his name on them:

I mean, at least there’s a path to come back from a half a billion dollar judgment. He could get Elon Musk or Saudi Arabia to underwrite it or some of the many GoFundMe campaigns launched by his brainwashed masses could help cover the tab. But boy, if you put out a shoe that flops, you’re never getting your reputation back, possibly even among the few people with whom your reputation was previously good.

Not that I think they’ll flop, at least technically speaking. These are gonna be like those books that right wing political types write which make the bestseller lists despite the fact that no actual human beings own or read them since they were all purchased by their own campaigns or those of political allies in an effort to, as the linked article says, “conjure up an illusion of grassroots popularity.” In this case, however, I don’t think there will be the equivalent of hundreds of boxes of never-to-be-read books sitting in the basement of Ted Cruz’s campaign office. I think that (a) all the phony buyers will happily submit their money; (b) whoever is in charge of selling the Trump shoe will claim to be suffering manufacturing backlogs due to “yuge demand;”(c) the shoes will never be made or delivered; and (d) and no refunds will ever be requested. Book sales require an independent middleman. When your money laundering operation is vertically integrated like the Trump shoe concern, the grift is practically frictionless.

These shoes, by the way, are called the “Never Surrender High Top Sneaker” and are priced at $399. That’s a lot of money but I almost feel like buying a pair. Not because I want to support Trump, of course, but because I’m a big fan of irony and on the off chance that (a) they actually do manufacture these things; and (b) there is anything approaching justice left in this country, I can’t think of anything better to wear than a pair of “No Surrenders” the day Trump reports to prison.

To give you all a sense of my amazing time-management skills: I decided that I was gonna put a sneaker song here as a play-out. “My Adidas” was the immediate and obvious first choice. But then I decided to see if I could find something a little more obscure or interesting just for the hell of it.

Exactly 72 minutes later — and yes it was actually 72 minutes — I looked up, and realized that I was needlessly overthinking it and that it would be dumb to go with anything other than the best sneaker song of all time. So I kept it.

I’m a mortal man who, like everyone else, shambles one second closer to death with each second that passes. I am never getting those 72 minutes back for they have been, in a sense, gifted to Death Itself. But I did hear a lot of great sneaker jams yesterday afternoon, so it probably all evens out.

Have a great day everyone.

Make a Comment