Comments on: Don Fehr speaks

By: Aaron W.

Aaron W. — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:07:21 +0000

It seems to me that Fehr states his responsibility to the players
rather narrowly. I would think that presenting the public and the union in the best possible manner would be an interest worth representing. If we look at Fehr as the public face of the MLBPA (which he is), then his public statements and behavior — especially on the steroids issue — have been embarrassing and detrimental to the public perception of the players and their union. Public perception isn’t the job’s #1 issue, but it has a dampening effect on your efforts to carry out your job. Take the appearance before Congress: Bud Selig shrugs his shoulders with the “Hey, I WANTED better testing, but they threatened to strike” while Fehr digs a PR grave for his organization by chanting “No testing.” I think that Selig became much better at representing himself and the owners to the public over the years (better off than ’94, eh?). Fehr has taken Marvin Miller’s remarkable ability to make the MLBPA seem like a righteous cause and dropped the ball.
It’s not such a big deal in the scheme of things, but sometimes appearances really ARE important. Ask the players named in the Mitchell Report if Fehr’s public position on the PEDs issue was unimportant.

By: Andy H

Andy H — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:02:05 +0000

“No such argument exists for Fehr. Good union head, but simply being a good union head isn’t Hall of Fame worthy.”
I don’t know, aren’t pretty much all of the Commissioner’s in the Hall?

By: Old Gator

Old Gator — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:53:17 +0000

I loved his answer on steroids. Quick, sign him up as an assistant hitting instructor for the Cardinals!

By: Jason @ IIATMS

Jason @ IIATMS — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:26:38 +0000

I can’t help but think that the “not anything I’m prepared to talk about” comment covers an awful lot of territory. Probably a lot of it being hyper-sensitive confidential stuff that lawyers and union heads tend to get involved in.
Yeah, like his yet to be released/written memoirs….
Milk ain’t for free!

By: Mark Armour

Mark Armour — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:12:23 +0000

I actually like Fehr. He had a job where it was essentially impossible to perform well and have the fans like him. He was not smooth with the press, clearly, but he struck me as honest and well-meaning in some tough situations. I would rather have a beer with him than virtually anyone in baseball over the past 20 years.
This is likely a sad thing to say, but so be it.

By: Craig Calcaterra

Craig Calcaterra — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:06:43 +0000

People who advocate for Fehr just because Miller goes in (if it happens) would be wrong to do so. Miller was the driver behind a fundamental change in baseball. Fehr merely exploited the change to more lucrative effect.
The advocates for Miller — which I know you are not one of, Ron — don’t want him in the Hall because he made the players money. We want him in because he brought fundamental change to the owner-player relationship that (a) went a long way towards remedying decades of exploitation; and (b) changed the competitive landscape of the game (In our view for the better, though we know some disagree).
No such argument exists for Fehr. Good union head, but simply being a good union head isn’t Hall of Fame worthy.

By: Ron

Ron — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:57:52 +0000

Isn’t Fehr the best reason for Marvin Miller not to go into the Hall? Because if Miller goes in, won’t people start advocating for Fehr also?
That’s the argument they use against keeping Dawson/Blyleven/Trammell/Whitaker/etc out, so shouldn’t it work for all areas of consideration?

By: RobRob

RobRob — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:53:34 +0000

I think he’s trying to say that the players were not trying to kill the WS in 1994. In other words, they went on strike early enough to save the WS, so it’s at the feet of the owners that it got canceled.

Or put yet another way, “Hey look… If we had *wanted* to kill the World Series, we would have done it much more overtly.”