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.
- Mike Trout, Giancarlo Stanton win the Hank Aaron Award 1
- World Series, Game 4: Royals vs. Giants lineups 1
- Report: Rays owner Stuart Sternberg has discussed moving the team to Montreal 46
- Dave Dombrowski on Miguel Cabrera: “It’s worse than what we ever would have anticipated” 26
- World Series Reset: Can the Giants even things up? 4
- Behind strong bullpen, Royals edge Giants 3-2 to take a 2-1 World Series lead 35
- Paul Konerko, Jimmy Rollins named co-winners of the Roberto Clemente Award 4
- The greatest trick this Royals bullpen ever pulled … 3
- Shocker! Joe Maddon to opt out of his contract and leave the Rays (143)
- Erroneous Narrative Alert: no, the Giants are not a “gritty,” anti-stats organization (122)
- Pedro Martinez has some opinions about who the new “face of baseball” is (112)
- PANTY RAID! Homeland Security agents confiscate unlicensed Kansas City Royals underwear (109)
- The World Series ratings are low. So what? (101)