Jan 5, 2011, 9:25 AM EDT
Michael S. Schmidt of the New York Times was fed a line by Major League Baseball sources over the Scott Boras loans to Edward Salcedo. He was told that they were scandalous and wrong and that they violated union rules and he reported the daylights out of it.
Yesterday, the union said, nope, no rules were violated. You’d think, then, that it’s time for some walkback by Schmidt. Maybe time for a little reflection about what his sources are feeding him. You’d think wrong. Here’s Schmidt in this morning’s paper:
But while the union has now essentially cleared Boras, Commissioner Bud Selig remains unsatisfied, according to those same people.
“If the union feels that Boras giving money to young Dominican prospects does not violate its rules, then they should take a look at their own rules,” said one high-ranking baseball official.
I love the “essentially” added to that first sentence. In this context it’s clearly meant to mean “bogusly” or “regrettably.” Note to the New York Times: when the very organization whose rules were alleged to have been violated says, no, the rules were not violated, there is no “essentially” about it. The union has cleared Boras. They have not “essentially” cleared Boras.
Following that passage is a bunch more water-carrying for anonymous MLB sources. Can you imagine if Schmidt — who splits his time working the crime beat, by the way — wrote something like this:
But while the judge has now essentially cleared the defendant, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly remains unsatisfied, according to those same people. “If the government feels that the defendant doing what he did does not violate the law, then they should take a look at the law.”
He’d never write that. Probably because the Police Commissioner of New York would never say that, but mostly because the Times would require that the reporter give the system a little more credence than Schmidt is giving the MLBPA when it comes to the interpretation of its own rules. Indeed, he spends several paragraphs talking about other ways in which the league can go after Boras for all of this now, and then fills in with more “boy, the Dominican Republic is filthy with agents” rebop.
This story is over, Mr. Schmidt. Your sources had a clear agenda in going after Boras and they steered you in the wrong direction. Their beef against him has not been borne out and it’s time to move on. And even if they won’t, you should.
- How’d he do that? Magician Maddux fooled hitters all the way to Hall 6
- And That Happened: Thursday’s scores and highlights 46
- MLBPA files grievance against Astros in regard to draft pick situation 35
- The eyes have it: Thomas’ greatness built on patience 14
- Expert’s Corner: How to troll fans of all 30 teams 193
- Mariners re-acquire Kendrys Morales from Twins for Stephen Pryor 22
- A’s designate $10 million reliever Jim Johnson for assignment 35
- Everything you need to know about next week’s trade deadline 35
- Expert’s Corner: How to troll fans of all 30 teams (193)
- Verducci: baseball should think about an “illegal defense” rule to combat shifts (162)
- Yankees acquire Chase Headley from Padres (108)
- Who is the next Face of Baseball? (97)
- David Ortiz passes Carl Yastrzemski on the all-time home run list — is he a Hall of Famer? (92)