Central Concerns: Putting people last and putting people first
While Mickey Callaway remains suspended from his position as the Los Angeles Angels’ pitching coach due to behavior that surfaced during his time with the Mets, attention is now turning to his lengthy tenure as the pitching coach of the Cleveland Indians from 2010 through 2017.
The Athletic’s Katie Strang and Britt Ghiroli followed up their expose on Callaway’s alleged history of unwanted sexual advancements during his time with the Mets with a deeper dive into Callaway’s time in Cleveland. It’s prompted mostly by the statement of Cleveland team president Chris Antonetti, who said, “When I read the article, that was the first time I became aware of the alleged behaviors.”
The story also includes another line from Antonetti: “There had never been any complaints against Mickey in his time with us, either to me or to our human resources department or other leaders.โ
These statements may be tailored well enough to hold legal water, if Antonetti did not specify which “alleged behaviors.” Also, female team employees who said they received suggestive messages from Callaway said they did not report them through official channels, so there’s that.
But the team apparently knew how Callaway operated in some regard …
Since the publication of The Athleticโs first article, more women have come forward to say that Callaway made them uncomfortable by sending them inappropriate messages and/or photos, making unwanted advances and more while they worked for the Indians. Additionally, in 2017, an angry husband repeatedly called the teamโs fan services department to complain that Callaway had sent โpornographic materialโ to his wife. Those calls were brought to the attention of Antonetti, manager Terry Francona and general manager Mike Chernoff; the Indians spoke with Callaway about the matter. A Cleveland attorney spoke with the wife and said โ in a phone call that was recorded โ that Callaway had expressed remorse to him. The attorney added that โthe Indians are frickinโ pissed as hellโ at Callaway and offered to have Francona call the husband. Additionally, an MLB security official contacted the husband and told him: โMickey wants this all to go away,โ and the husband later emailed MLB directly about Callaway.
… which is why the tailored deniability is harder to apply on a greater workplace-wide scale. Vague press releases from the team and an uncomfortable no-comment from Francona is all they have so far. During the silence, Francona’s son attacked his dad, which makes this more of a train wreck.
There’s a need for a reckoning of some kind, because when paired with the Mets’ hiring and firing of Jared Porter, he of the 62 unanswered texts to a female reporter, the league has a burgeoning problem with creeps, guys who can’t spot them, and guys who can but won’t do anything about it. That the Angels haven’t yet automatically fired Callaway suggest that Cleveland’s leadership can put its head down and wait it out, but while firings could be justifiable and satisfying, they’d come too late to be a deterrent. It’s more helpful if unrelated teams can use the mistakes of others to check under their own rugs.
* * * * * * * * *
While Cleveland is reeling in the media, the Royals are getting positive press for trying, even if the projections suggest it’s fruitless. Tyler Kepner of the New York Times talked to Dayton Moore about his desire to make teams better regardless of the standings.
The Royals made multiyear commitments to Mike Minor and Carlos Santana through free agency, and to Andrew Benintendi through a trade with Boston. They gave pitching prospects like Brady Singer and Kris Bubic lengthy auditions over last year’s 60-game schedule. They were the first team to commit to paying all of their minor-league players through the 2020 season, and their reputation for treating prospects well paid off with signings after the five-round draft.
For all the effort, the Royals only project to win 77 games via FanGraphs, or 70-71 games via PECOTA. Moore sounds refreshingly unbothered:
Are they ready to win? Maybe, maybe not. But Moore wants to give them the chance.
โI donโt have 100 percent security on what the result is going to be โ but I think itโs got a chance to be a lot better,โ he said. โAnd if we donโt do anything, Iโve got a pretty good idea what the outcome is going to be.โ
As we saw with the White Sox, there’s little payoff at the fan level for paring the roster down to nothing, at least if a clear-cutting of the payroll doesn’t open avenues for aggressive problem-solving later. They did get higher draft picks for their struggles, but hopefully they’ll be better at producing prospects from outside the top five, which would go the furthest in making future tanks unnecessary.
What Moore’s proposing is supertankers are never really necessary, or at least stand the chance of hurting more than they help. I’m not sure how many share that vision, but it’s a pleasure to see it expressed, and if the White Sox weren’t so reliant on beating up on the Royals, I’d be a lot more invested in seeing it pay off.
(Image by Doug Bardwell from Pixabay)
Good on the Royals for their approach. The sooner the complete-tank strategy dies in MLB, the better.
Agreed. Although it shouldnโt be, KC approaching the building of the team competitively is refreshing and unique. I hope they finish in 2nd behind the Sox. Or at least ahead of Cleveland
Wow. Hard to believe guys like this can keep getting hired in baseball. There’s only 30 teams. You would think word would get around pretty fast.
Word probably does get around. Only in hushed whispers whilst burying heads in the sand hoping the problem solves itself. This sort of behavior is disgustingly pervasive in all professions, particularly ones where individuals hold a lot of power over their employees. It’s hard to be the nark in the ‘boys’ club, but somebody eventually needs to grow a spine and call these morally bankrupt humans out for what they are. Garbage that has no business holding the positions that they do.
The messenger may not get shot but upper management will hate them for taking out an important cog in the chain when rank and file are considered interchangeable. Even after the resolution, it hangs in the air, and those involved move on. If you grow a spine, plan on moving on sooner rather than later- it is a career killer.
You are right, and that is a major problem. However, in today’s world, it is getting easier to make a lot more noise on your way out the door. Eventually, purging the unacceptable behavior is going to be the easier route than dealing with all the media fallout. This of course is a slippery slope as well because lot’s of ways to game that system.
I don’t have an easy solution, all I know is I’m sick of reading about fucking creeper dudes.
These MLB reckonings are far from over. Conservatively supposing 1 in 10 guys is a serious creep and 1 in 10 is abusive, and knowing what an old boys club baseball is, weโre still just scratching the surface.
I really wonder about the Mets specifically though.
Anyone who has gone through that org in the last 25 years worries me, based on all the stuff related to the whole “The Bad Guys Won” era. The history of baseball does not exactly involve players and staff treating women well– so a team that was considered extreme 25 years ago scares me.
Of course, the only reason I really think about that stuff is Daryl Boston and his rape allegations.
Maybe it’s some absurd conspiratorial thinking on my part, but I can’t help see a through-line from that era of the Mets to today. As Boston and LaRussa show, that era of player and manager is still around. And the “LOL Mets” type inability to build a winning culture most of the last two decades could be related to that mismanagement.
Did they really hire Callaway because they were too incompetent to do their due diligence? And then used his on-field failings as an excuse to fire him for the other stuff?
Or was he the type of person who appealed to them from the get go? His faults were way too easily excused by their leadership.
—
I wanted Boston gone as soon as I read that story. And everything that’s been happening in the Baseball #MeToo space since then has made me think getting rid of him sooner rather than later is important for the Sox.
The insular nature of the White Sox hiring practices has been a problem for some time now. I would really hate if some of that were based on sheltering pieces of shit like Boston. They moved on quickly from Vizquel, but their failure to mention why didn’t exactly do them any favors.
By no means would I defend the supertankers or excuse the Sox’ lack of spending this past offseason, but I’m having trouble following this train of thought. The single biggest reason the Sox are now contenders is because they “pared the roster down to nothing” – by trading their cost-controlled stars for another round of them in Moncada, Kopech, Jimenez, Giolito, etc.
Yes, but if they aren’t aggressive in solving problems, many of which are pretty damn obvious already, their status as a “contender” is more of the “in the running” sort than “at the top of the pack” sort.
The true super tankers never seem to switch gears to โcompetitiveโ, by spending money on veteran players. Teams like Pittsburgh, Tampa, and Miami operate on shoestring budgets and rely on player development only to compete. Obviously sometimes it works (consistently for Tampa) but once their talent is close to making money in arbitration they are traded and the cycle begins again. Has to be difficult to root for teams that you have no clue who the players are on a yearly basis and for organizations that donโt actively try to field itโs best team consistently.
The Sox are different. They have spent money on veteran additions, extending their quality young talent to team friendly deals before needing to, and through the international market (still canโt believe Jerry wrote that check for Robert), so while we may not agree with all of the decisions on where and how the money was spent, they have committed to this rebuild financially and now have an exciting, competitive team with a chance for real success.
Almost every team that’s been to a World Series in the last few years after undergoing a complete tear-down has spent money to create an extended window. Even the Royals ran almost a $140 million payroll in 2017. Houston added Verlander at over $30m a year, the Cubs added Lester on a contract twice what the White Sox gave Grandal, the Nationals ran bloated payrolls with star players on big contracts, and so on.
Spending doesnโt equal success. Higher payrolls donโt lead to World Series titles. Who really cares about how the 2016 Cubs or 2017 Royals spent their money? The Sox have made a couple of shrewd moves to lock up an impressive core that were acquired in multiple ways once a rebuild was launched. And they signed a couple pretty good free agents, which shows commitment from ownership. Thatโs it.
Iโm not going to focus on guys they didnโt sign or what other teams did 4-5 years ago. Iโm going to sit back, relax, strap it down and enjoy one of the best Sox teams in my lifetime.
spending doesn’t always equal success, but the correlation has been long proven. MOST success has come with top spending. MOST of the failure has come with penny pinching payrolls.
if you don’t believe me, just go read about it on fangraphs. People much smarter than me have proved this pretty conclusively with fancy stats and everything.
Even just intuitively though– who wins more often? The team that fills the needs they have by paying for premium free agents? Or the team that just doesn’t do that?
And if you’re worried about us getting trapped in a big contract, I would remind you that:
1) Pujols & his contract are the exception for mega-contracts. Before Covid, 9 out of 10 of the last ten largest contracts were considered to be positive value.
2) insurance exists. The Astros aren’t even paying for most of Verlander’s salary this year because they took out insurance on his contract.
Which means we should have signed Springer instead of Eaton. Or Bauer instead of Rodon.
Except that spending does equal success. Almost every World Series team has a top-10 payroll at a minimum.
The rebuild trades were a valid strategy. The patchy-at-best spending the next three years despite obvious deficiencies on the depth chart is what I’m talking about.
Right. Ultimately, the frustration boils down to the fact that the indicators for an elite team are there.
And yet…just one or two more solid free agents would have made a serious difference. Ah well.
Having pared that roster down, over the last few years there was nothing stopping them from signing some actual good free agents on reasonable contracts, they could have then flipped them for more good prospects to keep the farm quality up.
If they had done that, it would also have offered flexibility now, when they don’t want to spend big on the best free agents they need. They would have had more trade pieces in the farm, as opposed to prospects they desperately need to work out to fill holes in the roster.
The hottest trend in the Central is overlooking your coaching staffโs repeated transgressions
My angst isn’t about what we have. It is that we look very well positioned to repeat history and it appears that ownership is ok with that.
An owner, who wants to win, should investigate why a rebuild was necessary and make changes to minimize a repeat of a rebuild.
Even now, with a good team, it looks to be temporary. We have a better team than in 2016 but we have the same attributes. Same holes, same lack of talent in the minors, and the same leadership.