Skip to content

Some are dubious of the Red Sox’ innocence in the waiver link thing

Sep 11, 2012, 9:18 AM EDT

red sox logo

Yesterday we learned about the MLB investigation of the leaks of the Red Sox players placed on waivers.  In the initial report, it was said that MLB does not suspect the Red Sox as being responsible for the leaks. Not everyone’s buying that. Like Rich Levine of CSNNE.com:

Ha! Looks like Lucky Larry pulled a fast one on the chaps over at the league office.  Of course the Red Sox are responsible for these leaks.

Um, OK.  The evidence Levine has, such as it is, is that the Red Sox have a long rich history of leaking stuff when it suits their needs. Which is absolutely true.  I tend to disagree, however, about the incentives, which Levine says the Sox had. Specifically, the incentive to make it clear to fans that they were trying to remake the team.

There was far more risk, it seems, on their big trade to the Dodgers being upset if news of it got out and Dodgers fans and the L.A. media went nuts, realizing how bad a deal it was for them to take on so much salary. Why would the Sox want to queer that deal?  Just to show fans they’re trying to do something?  The trades themselves were evidence of that a mere couple of days later.

I agree with Levine that the Sox front office has never shown the ability to help itself when it comes to this sort of thing, but there was all kinds of downside to a leak here. And there were 29 other teams who had access to the same information, any one of whom could have done it.

I’d prefer to wait for MLB to investigate before jumping to any conclusions about this.

 

  1. drmonkeyarmy - Sep 11, 2012 at 9:23 AM

    “Why would the Sox want to queer that deal” …..I’ve never heard the term “queer” used in that context before. Interesting.

    • Craig Calcaterra - Sep 11, 2012 at 9:26 AM

      It’s an old-timey phrase:

      http://www.netlingo.com/word/queer-the-deal.php

      • drmonkeyarmy - Sep 11, 2012 at 9:27 AM

        Thanks….I’m going to start incorporating into my everyday jargon.

      • nolanwiffle - Sep 11, 2012 at 9:37 AM

        Get on the trolley, Charlie!

    • stex52 - Sep 11, 2012 at 11:34 AM

      You’re just not old enough. Go watch some movies from the 40’s and 50’s.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Sep 11, 2012 at 11:46 AM

        Is it from that time, because I have a hard time wrapping my brain around a phrase that’s considered old-timey and then linked via netlingo (and see also – leetspeak or 1337speak).

    • hockeyflow33 - Sep 11, 2012 at 4:59 PM

      As a Sox fan, that trade made me very gay….wait it means what???

  2. uyf1950 - Sep 11, 2012 at 9:34 AM

    Does anyone really expect MLB come down on the Red Sox. Let’s look at just a little of the history between MLB (Bud Selig) and the Red Sox. Bud Selig allowed the John Henry to purchase the Red Sox below market value. They certainly were not the highest bidder. It was only after a fuss about the purchase price was made that MLB requested and John Henry agreed that they made an additional contribution to I believe the Yawkey Trust. Then Bud Selig appoints Ex-Senator Mitchell to investigate how widespread drugs are in MLB. While all the time unless I’m mistaken Mitchell was on the Board of Director of the Red Sox. By coincidence NOT one Red Sox player was named in the Mitchell Report. I would not be the least bit surprised if there were other examples of favoritism between MLB (Bud Selig) and the Red Sox but they have never seen the light of day. Now some may look upon this comment as bias coming from a Yankee fan. But in my opinion the one’s that are bias are the fans that can’t or won’t see the “forest for the trees”.

    • pisano - Sep 11, 2012 at 9:46 AM

      Well said my friend.

    • lazlosother - Sep 11, 2012 at 10:31 AM

      A number of players who played for Boston at one time or another were named in the report. Mitchell also detailed the acquisitions of Eric Gagne and Brendan Donnelly, including internal emails that demonstrated the Sox acquired these two knowing they were steroid users. Mitchell also emphasized that PEDs were in every clubhouse in MLB. The fact that the report centered on NY to a large extent was due to the fact that it was a NY guy that rolled.

      What people should appreciate about the MR is what a Machiavelian piece of work it was by Selig. After the “problem” had been ignored by the press and tacitly encouraged by MLB, Selig got a crony to write a report that named players. Big time players. This moved almost all of the attention by the press and public away from the league front offices, individual team front offices, and of course the MSM, which had it’s head in the sand the entire time to the players.

      Typical bottom of the barrel ethics by Selig, and typically he got away with it again.

      • uyf1950 - Sep 11, 2012 at 10:49 AM

        My friend in my opinion there is a difference between naming players that are currently on a team and making generic statements like “Mitchell also emphasized that PEDs were in every clubhouse in MLB.” It’s incredibly naive of fans to think that there weren’t at least some players that were on the Red Sox at the time of the investigation were “using”. For example: Manny Ramirez was suspended later on for failing tests. David Ortiz held his now infamous press conference stating he did not know who the “supplements” go into his system. And let’s not forget Bronson Arroyo went on record later on as saying he was surprised his name was not mentioned in the Mitchell report. These 3 players were all on the Red Sox roster when Senator Mitchell did his investigation. Now it’s obviously anyone’s opinion or guess why not 1 of these individuals was in his report, but I have my suspicions or opinion as to the reasons.

  3. willclarkgameface - Sep 11, 2012 at 9:47 AM

    is there ANY doubt that Larry is responsible for leaking information? this has been a practice since day one and you know he looks like mr. burns every time he does it, rubbing his hands together mischeveously. On the slime scale, Larry comes in right after Selig.

  4. bigleagues - Sep 11, 2012 at 10:06 AM

    I completely agree with Craig’s assessment.

    And I’d offer that in CSNNE (like anything published on NESN.com) we need to consider the source, and the agenda of that source. No offense to that NBC/Comcast O&O but there is a clear agenda to take a counterpoint perspective, even when there is no substance to it.

    Interestingly enough, there has yet to be much, if anything, leaked about Beckett, Gonzo and Crawford since their departure. There’s still plenty of time for that to happen, but perhaps, hopefully, a new leaf has been turned.

  5. proudlycanadian - Sep 11, 2012 at 10:21 AM

    I have always believed that the Red Sox brass have been major leakers of information about other teams as well as their own. I have no idea if they did so in this instance. It could simply be a case of another organization taking revenge on the Red Sox.

  6. Marty - Sep 11, 2012 at 10:31 AM

    My sources say this all started as ploy to make Pedroia feel important by presenting a trade for other players on the team they wanted to frame as less important. They thought the deal had zero chance of closing, and Pedroia would come out of it certain that everyone loved him.

    When the Dodgers called back, Sox management had to take a few day to make sure they weren’t being played themselves, because no team would be so fking dumb to take on those salaries.

    Source: Made up on the spot.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Three legends off to Cooperstown
Top 10 MLB Player Searches