Eiland is entitled to his privacy, but when you take a leave of absence in the middle of the season, it's hardly unexpected that the media will seek way about potential consequences, even if it's putatively sourced.

I messed up the edit. It should read:

Eiland is entitled to his privacy, but when you take a leave of absence in the middle of the season, it's hardly unexpected that the media will engage in speculation about potential consequences, even if it's putatively sourced.

Basically he should have resigned. Probably in the season. How can you miss a month in the middle of a six-month job? The only way is if you have such incredible institutional support that they will back you to the mattresses. Which Eiland obviously didn't. Without knowing the details, it's hard to blame Cashman for firing him publicly and in somewhat humiliating fashion.

Without knowing the details, it's hard to blame Cashman for firing him publicly and in somewhat humiliating fashion.

Funny. I would have said the opposite- it's hard not to blame Cashman for firing him publicly and in somewhat humiliating fashion.

First, even if the reason for leaving is due to personal irresponsibility, it's unprofessional to fire someone in a humiliating fashion. You just fire them and move on with as little fuss as necessary. Second, it would be even worse if the reason for the leave of absence is understandable, like an illness of a personal nature or a child with leukemia or some other family illness where maintaining the confidentiality of the situation is desirable and proper.

Speaking of the Yankees, this caught my eyes in another DN Yankee story today:

it's becoming increasingly clear the plan is to phase out Jorge Posada next season when his contract expires, opening up the DH slot for Alex Rodriguez, thereby allowing Jeter to move to third, making room for a more athletic shortstop, which would be the 24-year-old Venezuelan, Nunez, who hit .289 with 50 RBI and 23 stolen bases in 118 games at Triple-A Scranton this season.

"publicly"? How does Eiland get fired privately?

[6] He gets fired "privately" by "resigning", either mid-season or after the season. It happens in politics and business all the time.

First, even if the reason for leaving is due to personal irresponsibility, it's unprofessional to fire someone in a humiliating fashion. You just fire them and move on with as little fuss as necessary. Second, it would be even worse if the reason for the leave of absence is understandable, like an illness of a personal nature or a child with leukemia or some other family illness where maintaining the confidentiality of the situation is desirable and proper.

...How could Cashman have fired Eiland more discretely? Should he have just not said anything and then have a random person show up on Opening Day?

This story is even stranger because in the Times yesterday, Giardi gave a quote that seemed to indicate he wanted Eiland back but Cash made the move to get rid of him.

[6] He gets fired "privately" by "resigning", either mid-season or after the season

You mean, like by having his contract *not* renewed ... which is what just happened???

You mean, like by having his contract *not* renewed ... which is what just happened???

No, that's not what he said at all.

What happened is the Yankees publicly announcing that they no longer want Eiland back. What is being suggested is that the team should have told Eiland to announce that he was deciding not to come back for personal reasons. There would, of course, still be the questions about what his reasons were, but there wouldn't be the stain of him appearing to be unwanted.

But leaving the team for a month in the middle of the season is grounds for humiliation. If you have a good personal reason, the honorable thing to do is to resign. His personal reasons for missing a month are irrelevant to this equation. There are plenty of reasons why I'd quit my job to take care of personal things. And it may be that my job would for whatever reason decide they would keep me on. But vanishing for a month--his timing of return was mysterious--and then acting like everything is kosher is just turning having your cake and eating it, too, into a principle.

I also credit Cashman for being clear that he informed Girardi of the decision and didn't ask his input since it was irrelevant. Either 1) Cashman was showing who's boss or 2) Cashman was taking the fall for a Girardi who knew it had to be done but didn't want to carry the water.

The Yanks would and should have cashiered a marginal player who disappeared during the season. The idea that they should be more respectful of a pitching coach strikes me as strange.

What is being suggested is that the team should have told Eiland to announce that he was deciding not to come back for personal reasons.

much like Dick Howser

leaving the team for a month in the middle of the season is grounds for humiliation

Yeah. That'll show him.

But leaving the team for a month in the middle of the season is grounds for humiliation. If you have a good personal reason, the honorable thing to do is to resign.

Without knowing the reason for the absence or the reason why he's not returning, I don't see how we can pass judgment on how anyone handled the situation.

My feeling is that there is rarely grounds for humiliating a person in public.

At my job, I'd be greatly disappointed if my needing to take personal days was the sole reason they let me go. And I believe I'd have legal recourse as well.

I'm an "at-will" employee, while Eiland is a contract one. So that makes it different.

I don't see where Cashman did anything all that unusual. Coaches get fired all the time. Teams announce that so-and-so won't be back. All that Cashman added was:

"He's not being blamed for what took place," Cashman said. "I hope you believe me on that. ... He's a terrific pitching coach and he should have no problem getting a job."

So what's the big deal?

Murray Chass blogs writes on his website:

The dismissal, as it turns out, stemmed from the 25-day leave of absence Eiland was granted in June. Neither the coach nor the Yankees said why Eiland took the leave other than to say it was to take care of a personal matter.

The matter was serious enough that the Yankees told him he could return to his job as long as he didn’t resume any of the activities that led to his leave of absence. He didn’t adhere to the agreement and was fired. No one has spelled out those activities, and I will refrain from speculating.

That seems to hint pretty hintily that it was drugs.

But leaving the team for a month in the middle of the season is grounds for humiliation. If you have a good personal reason, the honorable thing to do is to resign. His personal reasons for missing a month are irrelevant to this equation. There are plenty of reasons why I'd quit my job to take care of personal things. And it may be that my job would for whatever reason decide they would keep me on. But vanishing for a month--his timing of return was mysterious--and then acting like everything is kosher is just turning having your cake and eating it, too, into a principle.

You seem to be confusing your knowledge with the team's knowledge.

What's the mystery? The Justin Bieber "My World" tour began in June 2010.

At my job, I'd be greatly disappointed if my needing to take personal days was the sole reason they let me go. And I believe I'd have legal recourse as well.

I'm an "at-will" employee, while Eiland is a contract one. So that makes it different.

If you took 25 straight personal days you better have a damned good reason. In fact, you better be under doctor's care, and elligible for disability, b/c most jobs require a doctor's letter and disability after 5 straight sick days.

If it's alcohol/drug or family related, I don't think they have any obligation to grant you paid disability or personal time.

If it's alcohol/drug or family related, I don't think they have any obligation to grant you paid disability or personal time.

I would bet money it was rehab. This case sounds exactly like what happened with a co-worker of mine a few years ago. The company sent him to rehab for a month, but he fell off the wagon as soon as he came back and they fired him. His wife left him soon after and he was dead in a year. Hopefully Eiland is in nowhere near that bad a situation. I drink a lot, but I'm very grateful it's never consumed my life the way I've seen it do to others. There but for the grace of god and all that.

Why drugs? He could have been buggering the batboy.

That's a nice family story, Shooty.

His wife left him soon after and he was dead in a year.

No, don't sugarcoat it. What really happened?

That's a nice family story, Shooty.


It was incredibly sad. I happened to be late in the office one night the day they fired him and we chatted for a while. He had some vague plan about starting a vending machine route in Staten Island, but I could tell it was just ######## and that he knew it was ########, too. Just remembering his face now makes me never want to drink again.

Just remembering his face now makes me never want to drink again.

I want to hear the longer, live version of this tale while you're drinking at the sports bar tonight.

I want to hear the longer, live version of this tale while you're drinking at the sports bar tonight.

I don't know, it's kind of a buzzkill of a story. Tonight may not be the best venue for a Carver-esque tale of woe.

I don't know, it's kind of a buzzkill of a story. Tonight may not be the best venue for a Carver-esque tale of woe.

Wry sarcastic humor fail.

Just remembering his face now makes me never want to drink again.

Says the man who started drinking at 11 this past Saturday morning.

Says the man who started drinking at 11 this past Saturday morning.

The irony is not lost on me!

The irony is not lost on me!

Nor me, who of course also started drinking then and didn't stop until roughly 11 that evening. (With a much-needed nap in between.)

You seem to be confusing your knowledge with the team's knowledge.

No more so than the people who are being critical of Cashman's behavior, which is what started this thread.

Just remembering his face now makes me never want to drink again.

Study: Alcohol 'most harmful drug,' followed by crack and heroin. Discuss.

Study: Alcohol 'most harmful drug,' followed by crack and heroin. Discuss.

I can't figure out if they adjusted for availability or not. If they didn't, that's pretty much meaningless.

I can't figure out if they adjusted for availability or not. If they didn't, that's pretty much meaningless.

The modelling exercise concluded that heroin, crack and methylamphetamine, also known as crystal meth, were the most harmful drugs to individuals, but alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine were the most harmful to society.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

From what I can tell, they are talking about total harm to society, which given the ubiquity of alcohol, makes the results pretty meaningless.

I mean, if we total up all the lost productivity from hungover employees, we'll get a big $ figure, but it doesn't mean that we'd be better off if all those tipplers were smackheads instead.

The modelling exercise concluded that heroin, crack and methylamphetamine, also known as crystal meth, were the most harmful drugs to individuals, but alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine were the most harmful to society.

Is it really right to separate out crack from regular cocaine? Seems like making 'shots of Tequila' and alcohol 2 distinct categories.

No more so than the people who are being critical of Cashman's behavior, which is what started this thread.

Well, what started this thread was Eiland criticizing ESPN. But anyway, nobody criticized Cashman for anything except the way he fired him, claiming that he should have found a face-saving way to do it, such as letting Eiland resign. Nobody suggested that Cashman shouldn't have fired him.