Already upset about being demoted from the starting rotation to the bullpen, Astros pitcher Shawn Chacon was suspended indefinitely Wednesday night after a heated exchange with general manager Ed Wade turned violent an hour before the Astros played the Texas Rangers at Minute Maid Park.
Chacon, who realizes he might not play again this season, admitted he lost his cool and threw Wade to the ground after Wade insisted he go to manager Cecil Cooper’s office. The argument took place in the team’s dining room, which Chacon refused to leave when asked to report to Cooper.
Chacon said he lost his temper after Wade cursed at him and told him to “(expletive) look in the mirror.” Wade declined comment on the specifics.
...
“He started yelling and cussing,” Chacon said of Wade. “I’m sitting there and I said to him very calmly, ‘Ed, you need to stop yelling me. Then I stood up and said ‘you better stop yelling at me.’ I stood up. He continued and was basically yelling and stuff and was like, ‘You need to (expletive) look in the mirror.’ So at that point I lost my cool and I grabbed him by the neck and threw him to the ground. I jumped on top of him because at that point I wanted to beat his (butt). Words were exchanged.”
Players quickly intervened to separate Wade and Chacon, who remembers being pulled away by backup outfielder Reggie Abercrombie.
...
After the altercation, Chacon wonders if he’ll pitch again in the majors. Astros owner Drayton McLane is adamant that if he does, it won’t be for his team, and he told his players as much in a meeting shortly before they began their 3-2 loss to the Rangers Wednesday.
“We can’t have anarchy,” McLane said. “You can’t have rebellion. If he disagreed with what Cecil wanted him to do, he should have had the courage to sit down and talk to him.”
Geez, Chacon is stupid. Hasn’t he heard how Ed Wade usually takes good care of relievers financially?
NTNgod
Posted: June 26, 2008 at 01:20 AM |
582 comment(s)
|
Login to Bookmark
Related News:
General,
Houston
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Absolutely not. You don't wait until it becomes a disciplinary hearing before you get your representation.
He explicitly said that they could talk about whatever it was they wanted to talk about right there, right then, in the cafeteria. He didn't seem to want or even think about having a union rep or an attorney or whatever there while doing it.
You're ascribing to Chacon an intent that was clearly not his own. Why you want to do this is not entirely clear to me, but nonetheless, "I need a union rep" is a strawman.
IF chacon was getting DFAd or released (they can't send him down) and he refused to speak to coop, all they had to do is call his agent. coop could have said to chacon, since you don't want to hear it in private, fine. you've been released. end of story.
what i'm not completely clear about is whether or not chacon had already talked to coop and had told him i'm not talking to you any MORE. you see, they were furious that chacon had told the media he was not happy about being pulled from the rotation and that his agent had told wade that and he wanted to be traded.
i seriously doubt they wanted to DFA him (before the wade in the cafeteria) because they have a suckulous bullpen and they WANTED him in the pen.
i don't know exactly what "discipline" is but if it involves a fine, well, that may be something he wanted a union rep to witness. i don't know.
what i DO know is that wade did the worst possible job with a bad situation - lose, lose - as one of my friends would say. and no, chacon shouldn't have jumped wade. i do wonder if, at that point after all the threatening and cussin by wade, if chacon THEN had a right to demand a union rep as a witness at any meeting if he had actually gone...
anyway, i guess i care a LOT more about the future of my team with "fightin" ed than i do about the rightness/wrongness of chacon kicking his ass
This is an odd thread. I think, though, that part of what is causing the conflict, such as it is, is that some people, like kevin, seem as concerned with the fact that Wade is an authority figure as with the fact that an assault took place and seem totally unconcerned with Wade's behavior.
This may not be the case, but some of the posts suggest that.
No one, that I have seen, is excusing Chacon. But some of us, me included, think Wade acted like a clown and a loser and don't really give a #### that he is "the ####### GM." Authority is conferred; respect, in contrast, is earned. Wade, it seems, has not earned it.
That said, there is no excuse for Chacon's attacking a small guy 20 years his senior, and of course, whether the boss has earned respect, s/he has authority and can use it within the limits of the job.
Wade will likely survive even if the players think he's chickenpoop -- though it could hurt future free-agent signings -- but Cooper is done as manager of these men, likely done even before this incident. But li'l ed will likely keep Cooper around until Drayton orders otherwise.
Last thing I'll say about the Jensen brouhaha here -- there's nothing rational about calling someone a fool or brainfried, or saying his or my arguments are beyond rational refute, or dismissing a specific argument by a writer by bringing up a different argument easier to ridicule. I won't judge the people performing these actions as bad -- I've certainly done the same before on the internet -- but your 'arguments' fall beneath Jensen's efforts on the scale of rationality.
Forget it and keep on discussing the m'Estros.
Because that is part of his job. To act with intelligence, judgment and restraint is part of what managers get paid for. One can be in cahrge without being a tool.
Who said he did?
"Deserve" has nothing to do with it.
Who said he did?
"There's really no place to go from there except to be confrontational in return. Chacon needed to know where he stood on the pecking order."
This proves my original point exactly, and underscores the aspects of this that elude you. There are any number of ways Wade could have asserted his authority more intelligently in this situation and perhaps avoided escalation. He was unequal to the task.
"So he wasn't a tool. He was the boss."
Nope. What Wade allegedly did was sort of like holding up a sign that says, "I am insecure and hotheaded." Few qualities are worse to have in bosses.
"That deserves respect, being decisive in getting rid of a clubhouse cancer before he infects the rest of the team."
We shall see. You would have to be in the Astros' clubhouse to know. You're not and you don't.
"Exhibit #452,354,231 on why unions are bad for America, folks."
Of course, if Wade worked for the IRS, you would be the Christopher Lloyd character to Wade's Nurse Ratchet and Nicholson's R.P. MacMurphy.
Yeah, but I have experienced a complete 180* in my view of the nuances of libertarian rhetoric based on your posts and Nieporent's.
Change we can believe in, one might say.
And that's exactly what he did. He asked for a private audience with Chacon. Chacon refused. There's really no place to go from there except to be confrontational in return. Chacon needed to know where he stood on the pecking order.
So he wasn't a tool. He was the boss. And now everyone on the team knows it, because Chacon's locker is empty and he's nowhere to be found.
That deserves respect, being decisive in getting rid of a clubhouse cancer before he infects the rest of the team.
- you gotta be kidding me
being "confrontational" only made him look like the itsy bitsy limp weenie he is. he would have done a LOT better to simply say - you are hereby suspended without pay for insubordination and walked off.
- if you really REALLY think that the rest of the ballplayers have any respect for wade after his behaviour you are fooling your self. ballplayers and FO people all over the country are laughing AT wade.
- as for clubhouse cancer - his teammates sure don't seem to think that
wade lost the forest for the trees. he was more interested in showing whos the bawss than actually doing his freaking JOB which was to persuade chacon to be good sweet boy and help out in the pen.
and now we got nobody instead of somebody.
a little point you keep forgetting
Ok, so he refuses to go to a meeting. Insubordination, which could have been dealt with professionally (and I put the burden of "professional" behavior on the entity rather than the individual on the lowest rung of power). But they didn't handle it that way; they allowed Wade to humiliate and implicitly threaten Chacon in front of his peers. To add insult to injury, while he was eating. For some people, eating -- no matter the social setting -- is a time in which extra respect and restraint is expected. No, it's not as bad as if Wade had humiliated him while he was shitting, or while he was in shower, or having sex, or sleeping, but still it is too much to take.
I'm just trying to empathize with Chacon here. Say I'm eating with my co-workers, and this total ####### (admittedly, it helps me to picture Nieporent) authority figure in the company invades my space and chastises me, yelling and screaming and threatening. I don't, I think, have the moral right to immediately punch him, unless perhaps it is a "repeat offense". But then Chacon said he asked in calm tones several times for Wade to back off. Wade didn't. It's Wade's responsibility as the person with power to *not* force the ugly confrontation; he didn't. I can see where reasonable people (not, obviously, Eraser-X whom I'm delighted to see still thinks mental anguish and emotional distress should have equal or greater legal *and* moral bearing than physical injury) would disagree, but I have a hard time condemning Chacon on *moral* grounds. And that kinda dovetails with what BC is saying about the team -- they can best empathize with Chacon, and they also saw exactly what happened.
Depending on his mood, Nieporent either considers such people heroes -- or that they are complete myths "invented by liberal schoolteachers and historians". Really, look it up. I keep telling you people he really is that horrible but only the old timers believe me. Now I don't think McClane qualifies as a modern Jay Gould much less Mr. Burns but if he did: such people, in a system so corrupt that there was no legal remedy to their sociopathy, deserved the ultimate vigilante penalty. IOW, God bless Maggie Simpson.
True. And this is not all bad.
Anyway, I think the legal vs. moral dichotomy on the principles is what is making for the confusion here. The law has to be firm on battery; has to be lax on "name-calling." That's the way it should be. But I don't think it's bad that some people break the law in response to verbal abuse. IOW I agree with the spirit of the "fighting words" principle. For instance, if Bill Clinton, now out of office, went up to Rush "Chelsea is the new White House dog" Limbaugh and knocked him flat and then spit in that junkie bastard's face, we should all cheer for moral justice; but it would still be illegal, and Ol' Bill should face criminal (but emphatically not civil) penalty. Da, comrades? (And just guessing, I think Kevin will agree with this, but Nieporent won't.)
Another exemplary internet toughguy.
Limbaugh would be justified to shoot Clinton. If this were in Texas, the law practically encourages him to. What if he's shot dead?
Internet thugs like you (coz in real life you are probably one of those clipped balls) boast of only the use of violence to get justice for perceived insults. In the real world, it is consistent with both the law and morality to restrain from violence in the face of mere words.
I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm happy to help change your mind from whatever-it-was to whatever-it-is.
Lisa, you seem as interested in Ed Wade's weenie as some others here are in Barry Bonds' and Roger Clemens' butts.
its not real fascination you know - more like the - i don't believe what i just saw cuz i'm tryin real hard not to laugh - sort of fascination. like you thought fer SHER he'd be hiding it, not waving it...
(sort of reminding me of the time when some loudmouth was rude to my mama and she told him to mind his manners and he said eff you bytch. she stared at his crotch for a few seconds, kinda lifted her lip in that billy idol sneer she do so well, and said - nah. i only eff MEN.)
my 6 year olds are more mature than ed wade (unless they are tired, sick or hungry - hey, there's only so much i can expect from males) AND they a heck of a lot better at persuading let me tell you that
- now barry bonds, oh i most certainly do remember the time i was most definitely fascinated with barry lamar's butt. as well as the rest of him. what an unbelieveably beautiful male human being.
- as for roger clemens, he got a butt only mcnamee could love
Maybe because private meetings between management and labor without witnesses can end badly for the labor side, and Chacon's having witnesses in the cafeteria reassured him that he couldn't be lied about after the fact. So, it isn't necessarily a strawman.
And you're wrong about Wade. Chacon was being openly insubordinate to Wade and Cooper in front of the entire team. I would have flamed him at that point too. He completely begged for it.
Then Wade should have been the one to find a union rep, as a witness, in an official capacity, to Chacon's "insubordination". I doubt Wade would have been physically assaulted had he done so,and he should have recognized the volatility of the situation.
Having a union rep present covers both sides. Management in my office routinely seeks out union stewards to accompany them when disciplining employees.
1. The guy who gets called out by a subordinate and calmly walks away, then suspends the player via a letter to his agent.
2. The guy who tries to handle things calmly, but when push comes to shove doesn't take crap from a bit player and lets him know it.
And Chacon's version does say that Wade tried to talk to him calmly and didn't erupt until Chacon refused to come. Wade either miscalculated the reaction or the reaction was unforeseeable.
You might be right. Yet, on the other hand, if the players already believed Wade and Cooper to be clowns, and this is certainly possible, then Wade's 'dick waiving' antics would tend to appear pathetic and insulting.
But this didn't happen until after the dick waving!
My guess is that they would be divided into those who would have ensured that Chacon was traded or released before it ever got to that point, and those that simply would have assaulted Chacon in the middle of the locker room. And don't tell me that it never would have come to this - all of those guys had players that hated them.
I'm not gonna take a shot at you or your managerial style here.
Joe, once a guy refuses a manager's "order" to meet with him behind closed doors, and he isn't that good anyway, you kick him off the team. A good manager doesn't keep someone around like that - if he does, he has no control of the team, anyway.
When one's reasonable posts contain 4 shots at other posters, it's a problem. If he can write posts that don't invariably contain insults, he's more-than-welcome to stay as long as he likes. It's one thing when, say, you and DMN take occasional swipes at each other, but it's a whole other thing when it's constant.
The shock that many members of the NY MSM felt (or purported to feel) after Whitson kicked the crap out of Martin was priceless- it violated their core beliefs concerning both Billy Martin (scrappy fighter) and Whitson (emotionally soft loser), on the same day at least three different columnists came to the same [probably false] conclusion to alleviate their cognitive dissonance, "Ten years ago Whitson would have been taken out on a stretcher")
2 at DMN, 1 at Eraser-X.
3, not 4, but the point remains.
Seems to me you're provoking an unnecessary fight, Zim.
You know, as much as I disagree with the social and political views espoused by DMN... I just don;t see it...
It seems that he regards them as myths or strawmen... I've met such people so I know they're not myths, but I don't think in the overall scheme of things they are that significant a factor in society.
Hell, in Texas Clinton would have been justified to shoot Rush after some of Rush's comments, assuming it was in the heat of the moment and not after some "cooling off" period. Or better yet, remember when Falwell was hawking some pseudo-documentary which purported to prove that Bill and Hillary were serial killers? If Bill could have arranged to meet Falwell in Texas...
there was no "bad news" to deliver - what is it with you???? CHACON HAD ALREADY BEEN REMOVED FROM THE ROTATION 4 DAYS BEFORE THE CONFRONTATION!!!!!
the management DID NOT WANT HIM OFF THE TEAM!!!!! well, until the wade confrontation. they WANTED him to either pitch setup or long relief!!!! what do you not get about this?????
- and as for you talking with employees, well, you work for the government, right? so all the people who work for you are government employees and you can't just confront them and fire them at will, right? so what would YOU do with an employee who you wanted to work on DNA instead of virus or whatever - and that employee goes off to human resources to complain that you are not sensitive to his/her needs. or whatever. are YOU gonna confront your employee in the cafeteria, tell him/her (ominously) that you want a private meeting, then scream and swear at him/her if that employee says to you that he/she is, um, uncomfortable being alone in a closed room with you and wants a witness or a non-private conversation?
- how do YOU think this would affect you relation to the rest of your employees? you think the best way to communicate is hostility/fear? you don't think you be dealing with complaints to HR, with employees who want to transfer to some OTHER boss? that you wouldn't get a VERY bad rep as a bad guy to work for?
as for the whole - oh chacon makes 2 million, like so freaking what does that have to do with the fact that he does not have the freedom to resign that job and get another position in his field? how would YOU like it if you wanted to change companies and you could never get a job in any other company in something you had got trained in -
The players have collectively bargained for the current system. I'm not saying it's perfect for them, but they agreed to it. A big part of the reason Chacon makes 2 million (don't know if that's actually true, just going on what's been written here) is that he can't up and quit and go to another team of his choice.
"The Employee Rights under Weingarten rules are as follows:
1. The employee may request union representation before or during the interview. Remember the company does not have to offer union representation.
2. After the request, the employer must choose from amount three options.
1. Grant the request and delay questioning until the union representative arrives.
2. Deny the request and end the interview immediately.
3. Give the employee a choice of:
1)Having the interview without representation (usually a mistake or the wrong choice) or 2) Ending the interview (best choice if no union steward is coming)
1. If the employer denies the request for union representation and questions the employee, it commits an unfair labor practice and THEN the employee may refuse to answer.
Although some supervisors sometimes try to assert that the only function of a steward at an investigatory interview is to observe the discussion in other words be a SILENT witness this is WRONG. The steward has the right to counsel the employee during the interview and to assist the employee to present the facts. Legal cases have established the following rights and obligations of the steward.
1. When the steward arrives, the supervisor must inform the employee and the steward of the subject matter of the interview: for example, the type of misconduct, which is being investigated. (The supervisor does not, however, have to reveal management’s entire case.)
2. The steward can take the employee aside for a private pre-interview conference before the questioning begins.
3. The steward can speak during the interview. (But, the steward has no right to bargain over the purpose of the interview or to obstruct the interview.)
4. The steward can advise the employee not to answer questions that are abusive, misleading, badgering, confusing or harassing.
5. When the questioning ends, the steward can provide information to justify the employee’s conduct.
If called to a meeting with management, read the following statement to management BEFORE the meeting starts!!
"If this discussion could in any way lead to my being disciplined or terminated, or affect my personal working conditions, I respectfully request that my union representative, officer, or steward be present at this meeting. Without representation present, then...
I choose not to participate in this discussion.""
I was merely stating that under Weingarten you may refuse to meet with your boss until your representation arrives, and that it is perfectly reasonable to request this when asked to a closed doors meeting with your boss(es).
As I said a half-dozen times in the thread, I am not siding with Chacon, nor do I think this is directly relevant. I was responding to those who said that if you don't toss your sandwich aside and lock step with your boss' orders to meet in his office that you are in the wrong.
I haven't worked in sports, but I have taught ex-cons, construction workers, in adult high-school completion programs, and at public high schools, so I have been in authority in volatile/physical(not lethal--nothing dramatic, but Chacon/Wade started out tame, too) situations with immature/hotheaded males (I was more Cooper-level than Wade-level) and I would say "no." You have to stand your ground, but keep your cool, like I said upthread. You're not in a "power struggle"--you HAVE the power. So, you don't need to make it about dick-waving or insults or confrontation or manhood. Wade could have "not taken crap" without acting like a jackass. Wade's reaction, as I said, indicates insecurity--like he had something to prove--which in turn indicates a pre-existing problem. It would be more excusable, although more damaging maybe, if it had been Cooper who had lost it--since he works directly with the players. Wade is sort of like the principal in The Breakfast Club who pseudo-challenges the Judd Nelson character to a fight. By putting himself on the same level behaviorally as those he is supposed to discipline, he undermined his own authority.
None of that excuses Chacon. Physically attacking someone much smaller and much older is totally pathetic.
Yeah, it is not really surprising that Nieporent and kevin are on the same side and using similar rhetoric here. kevin is a very authoritarian guy in general, ("Congress should be held in deep respect" was one line of his during the steroid hearings) seems to be opposed to organized labor, and identifies heavily with management. Nieporent is always going to be very concerned with property rights, the prerogatives of those who control wealth, and their surrogates, so his stance is unsurprising as well.
And as tribefan posts in 464 and others have posted previously, and as you seem to concede, this entire line of argument seems purely academic, as there's no evidence whatsoever that Chacon refused to meet with Cooper because he wanted a union rep present. There's no evidence that this was a consideration.
You would lose in arbitration, with that argument.
"An investigatory interview occurs when:
1. Management questions an employee to obtain information and
2. The employee has a reasonable belief that discipline or other adverse consequence may result from what he or she says.
Someone as good at the practice of labor law as you are at your specialty would be able to prove "2". IMO.
Chacon has an equal "prerogative" to hold the Astros to their obligations according to the terms of that contract. A good example would be Catfish Hunter's grievance against Finley.
To fully spell this out to avoid confusion: to the extent that a company voluntarily contracts with a union for certain restrictions as to how it can deal with employees, Nieporent believes that such restrictions are also valid and binding. That doesn't mean Nieporent thinks that all such restrictions are a good idea. (Additionally, saying that an employer "voluntarily" contracts with a union in the U.S. is a little oversimplified, because of the special privileged status unions have under the law.)
(*) I haven't looked up his salary; I'm repeating what others have said above.
That misses the point. This thread, like most of them about these kinds of topics, is pretty predictable in terms of alliances and subtexts, and I include myself in that. It is unsurprising that someone with my beliefs is looking at Wade's behavior, and that you and Nieporent are making the kind of statements you have made. You, after all, are the one who said the thread has done "nothing to allay my hatred of labor unions" and have made some statements about getting rid of Chacon etc. Your underlying beliefs, like mine, affect the way you (and I) interpret the situation. E-X's line about the sandwich in #466 is another example. Wade in this case represents economic power--the authority of team management and ownership to treat its employees as it deems fit, which includes being a loudmouth ####### if that is what he wants to do. Chacon had an order from his boss. From a libertarian/conservative POV, that is a big deal, and something to defend, and Chacon made a bad choice (after all, he could just quit) and should pay for it--heavily. Wade's jackassery is, it seems, largely irrelevant. End of story.
I see it differently.
The area of agreement for most of us is that Chacon was totally out of line. The areas of disagreement mostly revolve around Wade.
That's all very impressive, but the question is--and this is serious question--do you think Wade ###### up, or not? If not, why not? That is what I am talking about.
And, like I said, Chacon was out of line and I'd get rid of him, too. That is not at issue.
More importantly, however, I'd obviously win because of the second reason I stated: that provision has nothing to do with this case. Chacon did not ask for a union rep. Assuming arguendo that Chacon reasonably believed he was going to be disciplined, he would have the legal right to say, "I'm not saying anything without my union rep present." He would not have the right to say, "I'm not meeting with you; you can say what you have to say here in the lunch room."
(Note that the Weingarden rules apply to interviews, not meetings per se. There's no right not to attend meetings; there's a right to not participate in an investigatory interview.)
The boss is the boss. If he harms, threatens to harm, his employees or breaks the rules or law in dealing with them, he should be punished. Otherwise, he is to be obeyed though not necessarily respected.
So, yes, Wade screwed up and, given this incident and where the Astros are, if I were his boss I'd be taking a long, hard look at him. But, as you say, this doesn't excuse, in any way, Chacon.
Okay. To be clear, I don't approve of the way Wade handled the situation at all, I thought he did a piss poor job. But you're right, I don't find that point particularly interesting. So he acted like a jackass. All right, what of it?
Sure, fair enough. I think it is relevant; you don't.
Also, I was probably out of line a little--I often make the mistake of focusing on people instead of arguments. As I said to Good Face the other day, I like having guys around I strongly disagree with. Makes the place better.
Libertarians aren't necessarily super anti-union. For example, I'm against right-to-work laws - I don't see why Joe Schmo's Tool factory can't run a closed-shop business if both sides freely enter into such a contract.
My only complaint about unions (and the businesses) is when they seek governmental involvement. Businesses try to get government to force strikes to end and unions try to get government to prevent businesses from replacing them and government has no business in doing either in what is a private contractual matter.
In the MLB case, Chacon's a contracted employee, not an at-will one, so Wade should only have the power that's granted to him by the governing contract.
I should also note that I don't think replacement players should have the same rights that MLBPA members do as they're not a party to the contract. For instance, I don't think that the Angels should have been able to prevent Brendan Donnelly from being a free agent every single year and Donnelly should not have had any of the protections that MLB players had negotiated, such as a minimum salary.
- correctamundo
and i am STILL trying to find out why chacon refused to speak to cooper. i know it would be easiest to assume - well, chacon is a **** and leave it there. BUT coop is having trouble with the rest of the players and i wonder what really happened.
and i also wonder if that isn't why chacon told wade - you can say what you have to say right here (in front of witnesses) - that is why i brought up the question of a player rep. i didn't mean to cause a straw man. i am wondering if chacon and cooper talked the first time (when cooper informed chacon that he was being removed from the rotation) that cooper might could have told the other guys on the team that chacon said stuff he didn't.
- i care about those details because this is my TEAM we are talking about and this stuff is going to cause more problems. because ed wade is still here and because the Organization is obviously behind him. and the players are not. this is not the army and wade is not a drill sergeant even though kevin thinks so
as for billy martin beating up chacon - billy was ed wade size and i SERIOUSLY doubt he could beat up a man that much larger
This is how I see it.
I agree. Upthread, I said that there is a large chasm* between "criminal and violent" (Chacon) and "incompetent and foolish" (Wade).
*Don't be using this to make a Mom joke. And look in the ####### mirror.
Well, not that big a chasm considering how easily you can swap adjectives. Chacon is foolishly violent and Wade is criminally incompetent. Wade is also criminally foolish while Chacon is incompetently violent.
@473
Okay. To be clear, I don't approve of the way Wade handled the situation at all, I thought he did a piss poor job. But you're right, I don't find that point particularly interesting. So he acted like a jackass. All right, what of it?
- you SERIOUSLY think that this has absolutely zero impact on his relation with other players on the team? let alone players on OTHER teams? or other GMs who he is supposed to do business with?
you have a GM who don't even have the people skillz to try to persuade an unhappy (and not replaceable) ballplayer to cooperate. and the entire world knows it. and wade is now a laughingstock.
you SERIOUSLY think it doesn't matter?
Well, isn't that good for the Astros in the long-run? The future is a lot better if everyone considered him a laughing stock than if everyone considered him a smart, canny GM.
Well, I hold authority figures to certain standards in terms of public and professional conduct. Employees should conduct themsleves professionally as well, of course, but the context is different. If Chacon acts like a jackass, that mostly hurts Chacon. If Wade acts like a jackass, that could, as bbc says, affect the team as a whole. To me, Wade needs to stay cool in asserting his authority in public. He didn't.
Who's the one with the credibility problem concerning his anger management here, Wade or Chacon? Easy answer.
I'm not so sure. If I acquired Michael Bourn and Kaz Matsui and had to watch them play every game, I think I'd have some anger issues to work out as well. Especially when even my move that looked at first as if it was working out (Tejada) has looked disappointing the last couple of months.
Another cocky Orioles fan. No wonder Fenway is "Camden North."
Hey, unless I'm the GM of the Orioles, I can totally mention other teams that suck!
anyway, i'd like to be clear here too, and mostly agree with whoever is saying that ed wade did not do a good job of managing the situation. but i also want to stress that chacon did a much worse job of handling his end of the situation. that's where my focus was. the discussion has shifted more towards scrutiny of wade, which i wasn't too concerned with. the chemistry of the astros clubhouse doesn't mitigate chacon committing violence on ed wade's person. for chacon to be released, fired, whatever is the only option. the union is going to fight for his lost pay. i actually wouldn't have a problem with chacon getting the money eventually, if only because it'll probably be his last big paycheck. i'll bet he's toxic in any clubhouse (unless he turns into a better pitcher, in which case all bets are off).
and if it makes you feel any better, bbc, i don't doubt that the fallout from this is that cooper is on the hot seat and ed wade probably needs to watch himself too. if i recall correctly, the astros ownership is not shy about dumping managers and gms. look at what happened with dierker, purpura, etc.
so in the long run, it might turn out okay. :-)
Phred does a good job of summing up.
i want peace! peace in the valley!
Sure it matters. Not with respect to the Chacon problem, though.
Notwithstanding, the GM shouldn't personally have a relation with any players on the team. He should remain "Homeboy Upstairs," to quote John Smoltz. Relationships are for managers and coaches, not front office types.
I certainly wouldn't recommend to a client that he scream curses at an employee in front of other employees like that, no. But it's hard without knowing the specifics to know whether Wade completely overreacted or whether the situation dictated a public rebuke.
That's all very impressive, but the question is--and this is serious question--do you think Wade ###### up, or not? If not, why not? That is what I am talking about.
I don't think he did. Why? Because I don't believe Chacon when he says he was acting calmly the whole time while Wade was irrationally screaming at him without provocation. In actuality, it seems like he was pulling that passive-agressive crap with Wade.
Who's the one with the credibility problem concerning his anger management here, Wade or Chacon? Easy answer.
- wade was infamous for his temper when he was in philly. i didn't have no trouble finding more than a few links. AND the players have backed up chacon's version, including mark loretta ON THE RECORD.
Dan Szymborski Posted: July 01, 2008 at 12:24 PM (#2838897)
you have a GM who don't even have the people skillz to try to persuade an unhappy (and not replaceable) ballplayer to cooperate. and the entire world knows it. and wade is now a laughingstock.
Well, isn't that good for the Astros in the long-run? The future is a lot better if everyone considered him a laughing stock than if everyone considered him a smart, canny GM.
- i don't understand this. are you saying that wade's behaviour will attract MORE free agents? and that other GMs will want to deal with him?
and as for what wade did in the offseason - well, you have to understand that he takes marching orders from tal smith. and the Organization decided, BEFORE wade even got there, to get rid of every player that the astros fans wanted gone except ausmus (lidge, qualls, burke, everett) and the 3 guys the Organization wanted gone (lamb, scott, albers) and to go get tejada, who the owner has wanted for 3 years. they had to sign SOME FA second baseman and they wanted loretta to be utility.
shrug
there is nobody in the minors to promote and towles didn't work out with the bat.
- best i can tell, the only real decisions wade made were to trade josh anderson, who was gonna be a AAA lifer anyhow because the Organization didn't like him, sign erstad, abercrombie, runelvys, chacon, byrdak and wright.
- personally i think he could have done a LOT better than bourn (a DR/PH) and geary (middle reliever) for lidge PLUS bruntlett, but hey, for all i know he might could have got told - your FIRST job is to get rid of lidge.
- personally i think the deal for tejada was ludicrous - a juicer with a huge salary that no other team wanted anyhow for 3 cheap young pitchers and luke scott, who is having a better season than ANY astros OF. but i am kind of giving wade a pass on him because i have a feeling he was told to get tejada, and get him before the mitchell report comes out. and if he was TOLD to get tejada at such a high price, well then he did what he was told to. but i don't know exactly what went down...
As for his relation with other players, I doubt it. Or, rather, I doubt that it has any significant effect on anything. The GM doesn't interact with players, generally speaking. That's why the team has a manager and why the player has an agent. Players spend 180 days a year -- well, more if you count spring training -- in close proximity to each other and to the manager and coaches. They travel with them, live with them, eat with them, etc. It's important that their relationship be good. They see the GM occasionally, and rarely deal with him. I don't think it's a significant consideration.
If they feel the GM lies to them when he's signing them -- for instance, he tells them they're going to get 500 ABs and then they're immediately made into a part-time player without justification -- that would be serious. But if they think the GM is just a jerk? So what?
looking through the thread and re-reading the article, i believe the whole union digression to be useless to the debate. it never entered into the events. chacon wasn't putting off wade and cooper cuz he wanted a union rep. he just didn't want to talk to them. if i'm mistaken, i'd like to know where.
- you are not. it was just a guess from me
anyway, i'd like to be clear here too, and mostly agree with whoever is saying that ed wade did not do a good job of managing the situation. but i also want to stress that chacon did a much worse job of handling his end of the situation.
- believe it or not i agree
that's where my focus was. the discussion has shifted more towards scrutiny of wade, which i wasn't too concerned with. the chemistry of the astros clubhouse doesn't mitigate chacon committing violence on ed wade's person. for chacon to be released, fired, whatever is the only option.
- agree
the union is going to fight for his lost pay. i actually wouldn't have a problem with chacon getting the money eventually, if only because it'll probably be his last big paycheck. i'll bet he's toxic in any clubhouse (unless he turns into a better pitcher, in which case all bets are off).
- ida know about the chacon is "toxic in the cluhouse" stuff. too many positive comments from too many teammates. the money is pennies to the astros anyhow - it really is not an issue as MONEY but as telling chacon that he can not defy authority and if they tell him to pitch in the bullpen he is to tell the media - i'm just here to help the team win - and not demand a trade until the astros get good and ready to trade him on their time line
and if it makes you feel any better, bbc, i don't doubt that the fallout from this is that cooper is on the hot seat and ed wade probably needs to watch himself too. if i recall correctly, the astros ownership is not shy about dumping managers and gms. look at what happened with dierker, purpura, etc.
- the astros owner is EXTREMEMLY sensitive to managers/GMs getting booed at the stadium by the fans. it used to be that he got rid of managers when bagwell/biggio told him to, but they are gone now so he using fan booing. see jimy williams, phil garner and purpura.
- ed wade was declared a geenyuss by 99% of astros fans beefore the astros starting losing in june - even if they start winning some, he won't get near as much respect as he did then. trouble is that the owner doesn't want to pay for minor leaguers or draftees and it is obvious he's not doing much in latin america and he is going the route of trading prospects for major leaguers and he don't want no josh byrnes/chris antonetti type guy who will tell him to rebuild. he has turned into angelos unfortunately.
- i wonder what drayton will do when HE starts getting booed
so in the long run, it might turn out okay. :-)
- sigh
honey, it is gonna be a VERY long run. we heading straight for pittsburgh/baltimore
No, it's not an "empty cliche" in this case. In situations like this, when you are in authority, you don't make it personal, and you don't raise your voice. It's very simple. And if Chacon had stayed cool, Wade would be under much harsher scrutiny. Wade is getting a pass of sorts--from some people--because he was physically assaulted, much like PJ Carlesimo did.
"Look in the ####### mirror" is not a "public rebuke" in this context. That is a guy losing his cool and being a dumbass.
This is irrelevant in evaluating Wade's behavior.
bunyon has it right upthread.
Well, it's "useless" in the sense that it's not directly relevant to a "useless" discussion about some baseball player on the internet. I believe that any thoughtful exchange of ideas is useful.
I commented on its lack of relevance though in my original post. I merely was responding to the idea that came up on multiple occasions that you must always meet your bosses when they demand a meeting.
there is already a LOT of trouble between players, coaches and manager. chacon is what you might could say is the top of the iceberg.
seeing as how our owner absolutely refuses to get any quality players in the minors, this organization is going to have to go out and get FA. do you think that ed wade is going to be a good person for this? we already had a tough time attracting top FA because they want the media spotlight and getting their team constantly pimped on BBTN and the ONE selling point we had was the great clubhouse atmosphere. and now THAT is completely gone, thank you ed.
do you really think that it is not part of ed wade's job IF he has the manager go and complain to him about how player x won't do his job, to make things worse?
as for laughingstock, well, i hear tell about how there is more than a few FO where the guys are saying - i would have LOVED to have seen that (the ed wade takedown)
- so far, ed has grossly over paid for tejada, gotten almost nothing for lidge, paid WAY too much for a 2B who is always on the DL and makes errors left and right (hahahahaha) and can't communicate effectively. peachy.
- then again, i do not know if chacon was fed lies. youneverknow
How you doing? Out of school?
- smile
the only guy who has said it on the record is dierker. i have heard it from other people who heard it from other people who supposedly heard it from people in the clubhouse. besides what i read from the beat reporters...
- and actually larry didn't get fired. he resigned.
not sure that there would have been enough pressure if it hadn't been for the barry lamar debacle
no fan base is that stupid (not even the phans). Couldn't possibly been more than 75%- don't let the more vocal fans fool you-- they are not entirely representative.
It was pretty obvious that Wade was hired because he was the one who most brazenly blew smoke up McLane's posterior. McLane may learn from this- or may not, but it's too soon to call him the second coming of Peter Angelos.
It is relevevnt to the amount of coverage it gets. It is not relevant to one's opinion of what Wade did per se. And, had Wade gone off on Chacon after Chacon's initial action, and then had Chacon walked away, this still would have gotten a little play, IMO.
how do you pronounce your name? is it "shawn" - because i really like that name and am seriously thinking about it for my next kid
JPWF,
we ALL know why wade was hired. it is no secret.
and you got NOOOO idea how bad i want you to be right about mclane not turning into angelos.
i shouldn't really care about a baseball club ths much. i am turning into my mother. without the brainz/statz...
Mine is pronounced RAH-binn. Just in case.
if i named my son robin all he would get is beat up
Huh? Robin Williams? Robin Yount? Robin of Batman and Robin? Robin Leach? Robin Hood? Robin Trower?
Plus, if you name him "Xian" people will think he is a Chinese Muslim or something.
find me ONE brotha name "robin" - he be like the boy named sue. HOW DO YOU DO
xian is a perfectly good name. and i think that E-X is half or a quarter (i forget which) black
How do you know I'm not a brotha?
;-
Oh, and my given (middle) name is "Robinson." That should have some cred.
because you TOLD me you are white
- and anyhow i DO have to pick some name because i want brian lamar and husband says it is too close to the, uh, dogs name
hehehehheh
Just because someone's your "boss" doesn't mean they have a free call option on your time and I can't believe how many smart people here think a grown man can be reasonably forced to drop everything he's doing and come to his "superior's" office immediately any time the superior wants a meeting.
"Bred for docility" -- great term from the Harper's article quoted earlier.
that dog won't hunt trust me on this.
- sigh
i can tell that there is gonna be as much, um, discussion on the next babys name as there was with the others. unless she's a grrrrl. we got that one. except that now i am thinking about xianna
david,
i see there isn't no way i am gonna convince you about ed wade/the clubhouse when you are a guy who argues for a living and sees things different. if you think the rest of the GMs are just gonna continue to take fightin eddie for a ride all i can say is what can i say. oh yeah. and that if i ever need a lawyer i am calling you up.
- it is not jeff bagwell for larry anderson unless patton/albers turn out to be fine after the surgery - youneverknow. but like i said, that 30 year old OF you got is better than any OF we got. he's bettern the 3 of em put together
It's she-on (as in the opposite of "he" and the opposite of "off") or "Shin" or just Sean. My father is irish and mother chinese, so it was a nice compromise.
It's also nice to have one of the world's most common names, but be the only person on the planet with the first-last name combination. I suppose if I pissed off people it'd be bad, but so far it's been nice for people trying to get back in touch.
Life is good. I was just in DC. I was going to mention something here, but it was a real fast trip--was at the Madison Center on Georgetown campus and didn't really leave the campus much. I did gain 5 pounds from the conference food they stuffed into us, so I'm only 10 pounds down from the start of the school year ;)
We start a summer social justice training program for the incoming Freshman next week for the entire month of July. I got to hire three of my biggest troublemaking students, so I'm hoping it'll be mostly them working and teaching and me advising. We'll see.
How's life for you all?
Oh, and BBC, if you do end up naming your kid "Sean" or "Shawn", just be prepared for them to be miscalled "John" all the time (I know, it's basically the same name, but...) I think a good portion of the people in the country can only process about 10 names, and just get frustrated with anything else. I always think it's fun, which helps me get along with the students :)
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main